What key aspect of freedom of religion was defined in the Big M Drug Mart case?

The Big M Drug Mart case is a landmark Supreme Court of Canada decision that significantly shaped the understanding of freedom of religion under Section 2(a) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The key outcome of this case was the affirmation that freedom of religion encompasses not just the right to practice any religion openly, but also crucially the right to hold and entertain personal religious beliefs.

In the context of the case, the Supreme Court emphasized that freedom of religion protects an individual's beliefs from state interference and recognizes that these beliefs are inherently personal. The decision pointed out that the freedom to entertain religious beliefs is fundamental and that it is the essence of individual autonomy in matters of faith. This interpretation reinforces the idea that individuals are entitled to their beliefs without coercion or imposition from the government.

Other options, such as the right to practice any religion openly, imply that public expression or practices are paramount, but this does not capture the complete scope of what freedom of religion entails as defined in the case. Similarly, the notion of absolute exemption from laws suggests an unrealistic degree of impunity that does not align with the principles upheld by the Court. Lastly, the idea of forcing beliefs on others contradicts the essence of freedom of religion, as it undermines another