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

taken for “facial recognition software for the purpose of the identification of, or the verification ofthe identity of, a person who has applied for an operator’s licence”.[7] Members of the Wilson Colony, like many other Hutterites, believe that the SecondCommandment prohibits them from having their photograph willingly taken. This belief is sincerelyheld.[8] Although the Colony attempts to be self-sufficient, some members need driver’slicences so that they can travel outside the Colony to do business and attend to the needs ofmembers. Under the 2003 regulation, members currently holding Condition Code G licences arerequired to have their photograph taken upon renewal of their licences, resulting in a violation oftheir religious beliefs. The Colony claimants led evidence asserting that if members could not obtaindriver’s licences, the viability of their communal lifestyle would be threatened. Mr. Samuel Wurz,the Colony’s Secretary-Treasurer, deposed that each Colony member has a specific set ofresponsibilities assigned to him or her, some of which require the member to drive. If a Colonymember cannot carry out these responsibilities, it “causes our religious commune to functionimproperly, thereby eroding the fabric of our social, cultural and religious way of life”. In his view,the Province is effectively “attempting to force the Hutterian Brethren to make a choice between twoof our religious beliefs”, a choice they feel they should not have to make.[9] The Province, for its part, led evidence that the adoption of the universal photorequirement in 2003 was connected to a new system aimed at minimizing identity theft associatedwith driver’s licences. The evidence showed that identity theft is a serious and growing problem