This article analyzes the conception of religion that appears from the religion-based asylum claims litigation in Canada. The Canadian State is compelled to respect a double obligation of neutrality and guarantee of freedom of conscience and religion, which leads it to interfere in the religious field to outline the concept of religion. The particularity of the asylum litigation reveals a functional understanding of religion, which remains nonetheless permeated with sociocultural residues. The analysis will first present the strategies of the commissioners and judges to avoid defining the religion. It will then show how the specificities of the asylum litigation, including the analysis of factual elements such as the credibility assessment, the evaluation of the risk of persecution and well-founded fear, affect the definition of religion that emerges from it.