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

[4] I conclude that the evidence led by the Province establishes that the universal photorequirement is justified under s. 1 of the Charter on the test set out in R. v. Oakes, [1986] 1 S.C.R.103. The goal of setting up a system that minimizes the risk of identity theft associated with driver’slicences is a pressing and important public goal. The universal photo requirement is connected tothis goal and does not limit freedom of religion more than required to achieve it. Finally, thenegative impact on the freedom of religion of Colony members who wish to obtain licences doesnot outweigh the benefits associated with the universal photo requirement. Accordingly, I wouldallow the appeal and uphold the regulation as constitutional.II. Facts[5] Alberta began issuing driver’s licences with photos in 1974. Until 2003, however,religious objectors were granted a non-photo licence called a Condition Code G licence, at theRegistrar’s discretion.[6] Driver’s licences in Alberta are governed by the Traffic Safety Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. T-6,and regulations made under it. The power of the Registrar to grant exceptions to the photorequirement which existed previously in s. 14(1)(b) of Alberta’s Operator Licensing and VehicleControl Regulation, Alta. Reg. 320/2002, was eliminated in May 2003 (Operator Licensing andVehicle Control Amendment Regulation, Alta. Reg. 137/2003, s. 3). The new s. 14(1)(b) nowrequires that the Registrar “must require an image of the applicant’s face, for incorporation in thelicence, be taken”. The amendment also added s. 14(3) which provides for use of the photo thus