What was R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd. (1985)?
Answer
The Supreme Court of Canada decision striking down the federal Lord's Day Act as a violation of freedom of religion under section 2(a) of the Charter.
Explanation
R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd. is the 1985 Supreme Court of Canada decision that struck down the federal Lord's Day Act of 1906 as a violation of freedom of religion under section 2(a) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The case was the first major Charter decision dealing with the fundamental freedoms of section 2 and established the framework for religious-freedom jurisprudence that has shaped Canadian law ever since. The unanimous judgment was written by Chief Justice Brian Dickson.
Big M Drug Mart was a pharmacy in Calgary that opened on Sunday, May 30, 1982 in violation of the federal Lord's Day Act, which prohibited most commercial activity on Sundays as a matter of Christian Sabbath observance. The pharmacy was charged and convicted at trial, but the Alberta Court of Appeal overturned the conviction on Charter grounds. The Crown appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada, which dismissed the appeal in a 6-0 decision that struck down the Lord's Day Act in its entirety.
Chief Justice Dickson's reasons set out the foundational understanding of section 2(a). The essence of religious freedom, he wrote, is the right to entertain religious beliefs of one's choice, to declare them openly without fear of hindrance, and to manifest them by worship and practice or by teaching and dissemination. Religious freedom is also freedom from compulsion to participate in religious observance. The Lord's Day Act failed both tests: it imposed Christian observance and could not be saved by section 1 because its purpose (rather than just its effect) was religious.
The Big M test continues to govern modern cases. R. v. Edwards Books and Art (1986) applied the test to provincial Sunday-shopping laws (which passed because their purpose was secular, even if their effect burdened some religious groups). Multani v. Commission scolaire Marguerite-Bourgeoys (2006) addressed the kirpan in school. Alberta v. Hutterian Brethren of Wilson Colony (2009) addressed photo requirements on driver's licences. Mouvement laique quebecois v. Saguenay (2015) addressed prayer at municipal council meetings. The current Quebec Bill 21 litigation (Hak v. Quebec) is the most consequential modern test of section 2(a) and is on appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada in 2026.
Why this matters for your test
Big M Drug Mart is the foundational Canadian religious-freedom decision and appears in many test references to the Charter. Recognising the 1985 ruling and Chief Justice Dickson's two-part definition of religious freedom anchors the answer to a precise judicial source.
Source: R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd. [1985] 1 S.C.R. 295
