T he Free Exercise Clause of the U.S. First Amendment has been conceptualized by the Supreme Court and many commentators in allor-nothing terms. The Court has tended to either apply “strict scrutiny” to burdens on religious exercise—in which case the government’s justifi cations for imposing the burden are rigorously reviewed––or instead, as of late, to apply a minimalist test that asks only whether government burdens on religion are motivated by antireligious sentiment. As the following materials and notes illustrate, other jurisdictions have tried to chart more nuanced middle-ground approaches. Whether balancing tests such as Canada’s, discussed below, are workable––there or more generally— is for readers to decide. Note that Canada, unlike the United States, has no explicit nonestablishment provision in its Charter. And yet, as the materials below suggest, Canada has incorporated many of the principles of religious equality on which much of the U.S. Establishment Clause jurisprudence has been built on. Perhaps Canada’s textual protection for multiculturalism has been an adequate vehicle in this regard. After reading the materials, consider whether the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause could or should do more work in U.S. disputes implicating religious equality. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (1982) includes the following provisions: