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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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 <strong>Alberta</strong>. 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 <strong>Alberta</strong> 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.
Quebec (Attorney General), [1989] 1 S.C.R. 927; R. v. Therens, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 613; Little SistersBook and Art Emporium v. Canada (Minister of Justice), 2000 SCC 69, [2000] 2 S.C.R. 1120; RJR-MacDonald Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General), [1995] 3 S.C.R. 199; Charkaoui v. Canada(Citizenship and Immigration), 2007 SCC 9, [2007] 1 S.C.R. 350; R. v. Ferguson, 2008 SCC 6,[2008] 1 S.C.R. 96; Thomson Newspapers Co. v. Canada (Attorney General), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 877;Trinity Western University v. British Columbia College of Teachers, 2001 SCC 31, [2001] 1 S.C.R.772; Health Services and Support – Facilities Subsector Bargaining Assn. v. British Columbia, 2007SCC 27, [2007] 2 S.C.R. 391; Eur. Court H.R., Kokkinakis v. Greece, judgment of 25 May 1993,Series A no. 260-A; R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd., [1985] 1 S.C.R. 295; Planned Parenthood ofSoutheastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992); Zylberberg v. Sudbury Board ofEducation (Director) (1988), 65 O.R. (2d) 641; Canadian Civil Liberties Assn. v. Ontario (Ministerof Education) (1990), 71 O.R. (2d) 341; R. v. Kapp, 2008 SCC 41, [2008] 2 S.C.R. 483; Andrewsv. Law Society of British Columbia, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 143.By Abella J. (dissenting)R. v. Oakes, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 103; R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd., [1985] 1 S.C.R. 295; R.v. Edwards Books and Art Ltd., [1986] 2 S.C.R. 713; Eur. Court H.R., Kokkinakis v. Greece,judgment of 25 May 1993, Series A no. 260-A; Ôahin v. Turkey [GC], No. 44774/98, ECHR2005-XI; Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia and Others v. Moldova, no. 45701/99, ECHR2001-XII; RJR-MacDonald Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General), [1995] 3 S.C.R. 199; ThomsonNewspapers Co. v. Canada (Attorney General), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 877; Dagenais v. CanadianBroadcasting Corp., [1994] 3 S.C.R. 835; Bothwell v. Ontario (Minister of Transportation) (2005),
Page 1 and 2: SUPREME COURT OF CANADACITATION: Al
Page 3 and 4: Present: McLachlin C.J. and Binnie,
Page 5 and 6: Per McLachlin C.J. and Binnie, Desc
Page 7 and 8: self-sufficiency, but there is no e
Page 9: Under s. 1, courts have only rarely
Page 14 and 15: Taylor, Charles. Philosophical Argu
Page 16 and 17: [1] The Province of Alberta require
Page 18 and 19: taken for “facial recognition sof
Page 20 and 21: The second is simply that a digital
Page 22 and 23: the extent that it renders a digita
Page 24 and 25: driver’s licences marked “not t
Page 26 and 27: Second Commandment: “You shall no
Page 28 and 29: [34] The record does not disclose a
Page 30 and 31: [39] Section 1 requires that before
Page 32 and 33: [43] The chambers judge found that
Page 34 and 35: connected to the goal of preserving
Page 36 and 37: ight is reasonably tailored to the
Page 38 and 39: associated with driver’s licences
Page 40 and 41: falls within a range of reasonable
Page 42 and 43: duty to accommodate, which applies
Page 44 and 45: impairing of the right and proporti
Page 46 and 47: need to realize it, the test of pro
Page 48 and 49: licence holders are represented by
Page 50 and 51: their s. 2(a) right. At this point,
Page 52 and 53: formed under compulsion of the Stat
Page 54 and 55: [97] The Hutterian claimants argue
Page 56 and 57: [103] Balancing the salutary and de
Page 58 and 59: each of s. 15(1).VI. Conclusion[109
Page 60 and 61:
R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd., [1985]
Page 62 and 63:
property and live together in relig
Page 64 and 65:
eliefs.In short, the Attorney Gener
Page 66 and 67:
(See also Jeremy Webber “The Irre
Page 68 and 69:
[133] Section 1 of the Charter stat
Page 70 and 71:
ationally connected to the legislat
Page 72 and 73:
[148] In RJR-MacDonald, McLachlin J
Page 74 and 75:
measure need to be assessed in ligh
Page 76 and 77:
[159] It is worth noting too that i
Page 78 and 79:
of the Hutterian community:The Hutt
Page 80 and 81:
“privilege”. This approach, wit
Page 82 and 83:
The following are the reasons deliv
Page 84 and 85:
of the case.B. Section 1: The Oakes
Page 86 and 87:
question (the “minimal impairment
Page 88 and 89:
It is at these stages that the mean
Page 90 and 91:
absolute and should not be treated
Page 92 and 93:
[200] As to the outcome of this cas
Page 94:
General, Toronto.Solicitor for the
show all

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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?