The Supreme Court has ruled prayers cannot happen at city council meetings.

In a unanimous decision the court ruled the mayor of Saguenay's attempt to hold religious prayers before starting council meetings violated Canadian law.

Mayor Jean Tremblay is expected to react to the decision Thursday morning at a news conference.

The case began in 2007, when an atheist resident of Saguenay, Alain Simoneau, and the Mouvement Laique Quebecois complained about the Catholic prayers recited by the mayor and councillors at the beginning of each municipal council meeting, as well as the crucifix and a Sacred Heart statue that adorned the assembly room.

In 2008 Saguenay adopted a bylaw declaring the prayer a "tradition" and giving it specific wording, as well as setting aside time so non-participants could enter the council chambers after the prayer was over.

Simoneau and the MLQ complained to Quebec's Human Rights Commission, and later to the Human Rights Tribunal, and in February 2011 the Tribunal ordered an end to prayers, the removal of the religious icons, and a $30,000 payment to the citizen who complained.

Tremblay was outraged by the ruling, calling it an assault on French-Canadian values and culture, and used the city's website to collect tens of thousands of dollars in donations to battle the ruling in Quebec's Court of Appeal.

While the court cases and appeals were ongoing the city of Saguenay left the statue of Jesus Christ in its council chambers, and began meetings with its supposedly non-denominative prayer and two minutes of silence.

In 2013 the highest court in Quebec overturned the Tribunal's ruling, saying that the prayer in question expressed "universal values and could not be identified with any particular religion" and did not affect the religious neutrality of a city in its day-to-day operations. The Court of Appeal also said the crucifix and the Sacred Heart were were works of art that were "devoid of any religious connotation."

Banning prayers does not favour atheists

In its ruling the Supreme Court wrote that the concept of religious neutrality is evolving, and that the Court of Appeal made errors in overruling the findings of the specialized Tribunal.

The SCOC said it is evident that the prayers in Saguenay city meetings were a clear "breach of the state's duty of neutrality" and that denigrated those who did not take part. If anything, the two-minute pause so non-believers could then enter the room accentuated the discrimination they felt.

"Although non‑believers could also participate [in council meetings], the price for doing so was isolation, exclusion and stigmatization."

The SCOC ruling says that banning prayers does not give preference to atheists because "there is a distinction between unbelief and true neutrality."

"When all is said and done, the state’s duty to protect every person’s freedom of conscience and religion means that it may not use its powers in such a way as to promote the participation of certain believers or non‑believers in public life to the detriment of others."

The Supreme Court decision also looked at whether or not the Court of Appeal was properly able to respect the decision of the Tribunal when examining a decision regarding the Tribunal's own area of expertise.

The SCOC agreed with the Tribunal that the prayers were religious in nature, and that the original prayer was clearly Catholic. This was accentuated by the mayor and councillors making the sign of the cross while the mayor recited "in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit."

Supremacy of God

In the defence of the prayer, lawyers representing Saguenay argued that precedent existed because the Canadian constitution recognizes the supremacy of God, and because the House of Commons also recites a prayer.

The SCOC refuted that, saying the prayer in the House of Commons takes place in different circumstances and, because it takes place in the highest legislature in Canada, it may be subject to parliamentary privilege.

The court said the reference to God in the Constitution has already been dealt with in another case in 2003 and specifically does not grant any religious practice greater rights and privileges over any others, be it monotheism, polytheism or atheism.

"The reference to the supremacy of God in the Charter should not be construed so as to suggest one religion is favoured over another in Canada, nor that monotheism is more desirable than polytheism, nor that the God‑fearing are entitled to greater rights and privileges than atheists or agnostics. Any of these interpretations would be at odds with the purpose and orientation of the Charter, as well as with the specific provisions regarding freedom of religion and conscience under s. 2. "

Prayers must go, icons can stay

The Supreme Court has ordered the city of Saguenay, its officials, and its employees to stop reciting prayers in council chamber.

However the court also determined that the Tribunal made an error in ordering the removal of all religious symbols from public meeting rooms used by city council because the initial hearings by the Human Rights Commission did not analyze the statues and symbols in detail.

The Supreme Court also upheld the $30,000 in compensatory and punitive damages, plus interest, plus the court costs and expert's fees.