Loyola Secondary School v. Quebec (Attorney General) of 2015 occurred between a private Catholic school and the Minister of Education, Recreation and Sports, who introduced a compulsory program (ethics and religious culture) requiring that the school teach its Learns the beliefs and ethics of the world's diverse religions from a neutral, secular perspective. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why violent video games should not be banned”? Get the original essay Under Article 22 of the Regulations Implementing the Private Education Act, Loyola requested an exemption from the ERC program and created two of the alternative course programs covered areas from a Catholic perspective. The minister rejected this request on the grounds that Loyola's alternative program relied heavily on Catholic beliefs, which contradicted the aspect of neutrality that was an important aspect of the program. Loyola High School felt this violated their freedom to practice religion and therefore took legal action against the minister. After their requests for an alternative program failed, Loyola submitted an application for judicial review of the minister's decision. The Superior Court found that Loyola's right to religious freedom had been violated when the Minister of Education rejected their request for an exemption (Loyola Secondary School v. Quebec, para.9). To remedy this situation, they ignored the minister's refusal of Loyola's request and granted them an exemption. However, thanks to the minister's appeal, the Quebec Court of Appeal decided that its decision to reject Loyola High School's application was practical and did not infringe on his right to freely practice his religion. The minister's decision was reinstated and Loyola had to teach all aspects of the ERC program from a strictly secular perspective. However, when it came before the Supreme Court, the decision of the Quebec Court of Appeal was reversed and the appeal seeking an exemption from the ERC program was approved (Loyola High School v. Quebec, para 165). The most important legal principle at stake in this case is the issue of religious freedom. Religious freedom is the belief that every individual has the right to practice, teach, observe and worship the religion of their choice; protected by section 2 of the Charter. This issue is prominent in the lawsuit between Loyola High School and the Minister of Education, because it constitutes the very heart of what Loyola aims to preserve. Since Loyola is a Catholic school, its academic curriculum is primarily focused on Catholicism and the Catholic outlook. The Minister of Education's application of the ERC program through an objective lens ignores both the strong Catholic values ​​of Loyola High School and the students and parents who chose this private Catholic high school in the aim of gaining a deeper knowledge of their religious beliefs. The final decision in the case was found in favor of Loyola High School, which meant that they would be exempt from teaching the ERC course material from a completely objective perspective. The Supreme Court of Canada concluded that preventing Loyola High School from teaching from a Catholic perspective violated their right to freely practice their religion. Asking a school fundamentally based on its religious values ​​to refrain from including those values ​​in the classroom not only proves ineffective in furthering the goals of the curriculum, but also interferes with its right to religious freedom. The players in this matter include Loyola High School and the Minister of Education.Education, as well as lawyers, judges and courts. The nature of Loyola High School is intrinsically linked to religion, particularly Catholicism. The nature of the Ministry of Education involves the goal of teaching students about ethics and religious cultures in an objective and morally neutral manner through the ERC program. The roles that Loyola and the Minister play can be observed from the perspective of litigator types. To classify each player in the typology of litigants, Loyola would be the one-shot. These are parties who have limited experience in litigation and going to court. The Minister of Education, on the other hand, would be considered a regular player, who has already participated in many of the same disputes and therefore has decent experience. There are four typologies of litigants, one of them being “single player versus repeated player”. One-shotters “appeal to outside help to create leverage over an organization with which the individual has a dispute.” (Vago and Nelson, p.219). In the case of Loyola High School v. Quebec, Loyola failed to reach a satisfactory consensus and therefore requested legal assistance from the Superior Court. This then escalated into hearings before the Quebec Court of Appeal and later before the Supreme Court of Canada. Among other things, the judge is also a key player not only in this case, but in all cases. The nature of the judge is to interpret the law in the context of the case presented and render an impartial decision. Although the aspect of impartiality is essential to the role of the judge, there can be and have been times when judges have failed in this key element. Judicial activism occurs when judges fail to omit their personal biases, views, and beliefs when making decisions in a case, transposing their own preferences into the law. The role of the judge may affect the outcome of this case and the development of the law for the benefit of Loyola or the Minister. An example of how judicial activism could come into play in this case would be if the judge also practiced Catholicism. This in itself does not prove that the judge would be biased, but it would be if he disregarded the defendant's argument and blindly bent the law in Loyola's favor. However, the judge could also be biased against the minister for potential reasons, such as being influenced by his organization. Finally, the role of lawyers and courts in resolving disputes will be discussed. The nature of lawyers is to advocate for their client's interests, whether it's Loyola High School or the minister. The courts are also used as a space for discussion of these issues. There are two methods used to resolve disputes. Both parties could either reach an agreement or negotiate without the assistance of a third party, or a third party would step in and act as an objective mediator if the two parties were unable to reach a conclusion (Vago and Nelson, p. 193). . In the case of Loyola High School v. Quebec, these two methods of dispute resolution were used. Before going to court, Loyola attempted to resolve the conflict itself by requesting an exemption and creating an alternative lesson plan. This attempt was unsuccessful, however, which led Loyola and the Minister of Education to bring together their lawyers before the Superior Court as well as the Quebec Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court, so that the third party party (the judge) can determine which of the parties in conflict had the strongest claim. The various stakeholders listed in the case included numerous religious groups as well as some educational organizations. Ibelieve that the interests of the stakeholders in this matter may be primarily focused on religion as well as the particular interests of some of them. Reading the list of speakers, we discover many groups driven by their religious values, such as the Canadian Council of Christian Charities, the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada, etc. These groups are linked by their relationship to religion and, although they may have different faiths, they act as interveners because of their interest in this matter of a possible attack on religious freedom. The World Sikh Organization of Canada, for example, does not share the same religious beliefs and cultural values ​​and therefore does not have a direct relationship with the present case. However, they felt that they should take this legal action due to the minister's unfair rejection of an exemption. Some stakeholders might also have a direct interest in this matter, getting involved because it concerns them personally or because they might gain something from it. An example is the speaker “Association of Catholic Parents of Quebec”. This group is made up of Catholic parents whose high school children attend Loyola. They then have a vested interest in this matter because they might want their child to learn about ethics and the different world religions from a Catholic perspective. By choosing to intervene, they give the trial a new perspective. We can see through this association what parents think of the Ministry of Education's strict insistence on the secular perspective of the ERC program. We know the nature of Loyola High School that must teach the ERC curriculum, as well as the Minister of Education that requires the ERC curriculum. The omitted voice in this equation is the voice of students and their parents, however, with this association's decision to intervene, we can determine what students think of the ERC neutrality program and how it affects them. We can also see how parents feel about Catholicism being strictly omitted when sending their child to school because it was taught through Catholic beliefs. The role of speakers is important because they not only support the plaintiff's argument, but they also draw attention to the wrongdoing of the organization in question. After evaluating the details of the case, I agree with the court's decision to grant an exemption to Loyola High School. As mentioned in the case, Loyola High School was founded on Catholicism. This is therefore not only what distinguishes it from a regular secondary school, but their faith is also a fundamental aspect of their identity (Loyola Secondary School v. Quebec, para. 14). I believe it was unfair that the Minister of Education did not take into consideration the various outliers who might challenge the teaching of ethics and religious culture from a secular perspective when discussing the curriculum framework , like various faith-based schools. Additionally, they were guilty of not attempting to reach a proper resolution with Loyola before needing a third party. Loyola had not only requested an exemption, but also proposed two alternative course programs, both of which were denied. By denying all their attempts to negotiate, I believe the minister violated Loyola's right to religious freedom. Everyone has the right to practice and teach their religion and faith. Loyola High School has experience and history teaching Catholicism and school subjects from a Catholic perspective. The minister's suspicions that the.