SUPREME COURT OF CANADA CITATION: Alberta v. Hutterian ...

a proportionate response to the identified societal problem of identity theft. The driver’s licence thatit denies is not a privilege as it is not granted at the discretion of governments. Such a licence isoften of critical importance in daily life and is certainly so in rural Alberta. Other approaches toidentity fraud might be devised that would fall within a reasonable range of options and that couldestablish a proper balance between the social and constitutional interests at stake. This balancecannot be obtained by belittling the impact of the measures on the beliefs and religious practices ofthe Hutterites and by asking them to rely on transportation services to operate their farms and topreserve their way of life. Absolute safety is probably impossible in a democratic society. A limitedrestriction on the Province’s objective of minimizing identity theft would not unduly compromisethis aspect of the security of Alberta residents and might lie within the range of reasonable andconstitutional alternatives. [200-201]Per Fish J. (dissenting): For the reasons given by LeBel J., the disposition of the appealas suggested by Abella and LeBel JJ. is agreed with. [203]Cases CitedBy McLachlin C.J.Applied: R. v. Oakes, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 103; referred to: Multani v. Commissionscolaire Marguerite-Bourgeoys, 2006 SCC 6, [2006] 1 S.C.R. 256; Syndicat Northcrest v. Amselem,2004 SCC 47, [2004] 2 S.C.R. 551; R. v. Edwards Books and Art Ltd., [1986] 2 S.C.R. 713; Canada(Attorney General) v. JTI-Macdonald Corp., 2007 SCC 30, [2007] 2 S.C.R. 610; Irwin Toy Ltd. v.