Sunday Shopping Freedom: Balancing Religious Concerns With Commercial Activity

Question: How did the Supreme Court's decision in R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd. impact Sunday shopping laws in Canada?

Answer: The Supreme Court ruled that the Lord's Day Act violated Section 2(a) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, affirming that laws compelling religious observance are unconstitutional; this landmark decision underscores the importance of state neutrality in religious matters, providing essential insights into how freedom of conscience and belief is protected in contemporary Canadian society.

Section 2(a) and Sunday Shopping Laws in Canada

Sunday shopping laws are one of the clearest examples of how section 2(a) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms operates in real life.  The issue was never “shopping” as a constitutional right.  The issue was whether the state could use law to compel religious observance by requiring businesses to close on a particular day for religious reasons.

For decades, many communities treated Sunday as a legally protected day of rest.  That approach was historically tied to the Christian Sabbath.  When governments enforce a religious practice through law, the Charter is engaged, not because courts are hostile to religion, but because the state is constitutionally required to remain neutral on matters of belief.

For Marketing.Legal™, operating as a Digital Marketing for Lawyers, Paralegals, and More and a Digital Marketing for Lawyers and Paralegals, the Sunday shopping line of cases remains relevant because it illustrates a core Section 2(a) principle: freedom of conscience and religion includes both the freedom to hold and practice beliefs and the freedom from being compelled to conform to someone else’s beliefs through state power.

Why Sunday Closing Laws Became a Charter Issue

Sunday shopping restrictions were not merely cultural preferences.  They were state-imposed rules with economic and practical consequences for businesses and the public.  Once the Charter was in force, the constitutional question became straightforward: what was the purpose of the law, and did that purpose involve religious compulsion.

Key constitutional pressure points included:

• State Compulsion of Religious Observance:
  A law that requires conduct because a religion treats a day as sacred is not neutral.  It uses state authority to impose a religious norm on people who may not share that belief.
• Freedom From Religion as a Constitutional Reality:
  Section 2(a) protects belief and practice, but it also protects against being forced into religious observance through legislation.  That protection is central to a pluralistic society.
• Real-World Consequences Beyond Belief:
  Mandatory Sunday closure affected commerce, employment, consumer choice, and how communities functioned.  Section 2(a) is frequently engaged where government rules influence daily life, not only where formal worship is involved.

The Landmark Decision: R.  v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd., [1985] 1 S.C.R. 295

In R.  v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd., the Supreme Court of Canada held that the Lord's Day Act violated freedom of conscience and religion under Section 2(a).  The Court’s analysis turned on purpose.  The law’s purpose was to compel observance of the Christian Sabbath.  That purpose was incompatible with the Charter.

Importantly, the constitutional problem was not solved by arguing that some people benefited from a common day of rest.  Where the underlying legislative purpose is religious compulsion, the state cannot rebrand it as general welfare and expect the Charter to look away.

The Court also found that the infringement could not be justified under section 1 of the Charter.  Section 1 does not permit the state to impose religion by statute and then ask to be excused for it.

What the Sunday Shopping Cases Still Teach

The Sunday shopping cases remain instructive because they clarify how Section 2(a) is analyzed.  Courts look beyond surface effects and focus on what government is actually doing, and why.

• Purpose Matters:
  Where a law’s purpose is to compel or advance religious observance, Section 2(a) is squarely engaged.
• Neutrality Is Not Optional:
  Government may accommodate religious practice in appropriate circumstances, but it cannot impose religious norms through coercive law.
• Section 2(a) Protects More Than Formal Worship:
  Religious freedom disputes often arise through education, regulation, workplaces, and public policy.  The Charter protects belief and conscience wherever state authority meaningfully interferes.

Modern debates about religion and public life often become overheated.  The constitutional rule is not complicated: the state must not compel religious observance, and it must be able to justify any meaningful interference with conscience or religious practice.

Conclusion

Sunday shopping laws became a Charter issue because they revealed a basic constitutional limit on state authority.  Section 2(a) protects freedom of conscience and religion, including freedom from being compelled to observe a religious practice through legislation.

The decision in Big M Drug Mart remains a landmark not because it changed shopping habits, but because it clarified that constitutional freedom requires state neutrality on matters of belief.  For Marketing.Legal™, as a Digital Marketing for Lawyers, Paralegals, and More providing Digital Marketing for Lawyers and Paralegals, this remains a practical example of how Charter rights are enforced through disciplined analysis of purpose, effect, and justification.