In my view, the Minister made no such error. Accepting that the Minister had to proceed on proper principle, the concept of “Oneness of Reality” advanced by the appellant is so broad and vague as to be practically unascertainable. The appellant has failed to show the existence of a “particular and comprehensive system of faith and worship” or a body of teachings and doctrine that would bring the concept which it promotes within the legal acceptation of the word religion (Syndicat Northcrest v. Amselem, 2004 SCC 47, [2004] 2 S.C.R. 551 at para. 39).
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.