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

The second is simply that a digital photo be placed in the bank, with no photo accompanying thedriver’s licence. The aim of these proposals is to minimize the impact of the universal photorequirement on religious beliefs by removing the need for Colony members to have any directcontact with the photos.[13] The Colony claimants reject both alternatives on the ground that they require a memberto have a photo taken. It proposes that no photo be taken, and that non-photo driver’s licences beissued to them, marked “Not to be used for identification purposes.”III. History of ProceedingsA. Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench (LoVecchio J.), 2006 ABQB 338, 57 Alta. L.R. (4th) 300[14] The chambers judge proceeded on the basis that the universal photo requirement limitedColony members’ right to freedom of religion under s. 2(a) of the Charter. He went on to find thatthis limit was not shown to be justified under s. 1 of the Charter.[15] The chambers judge defined the government’s objective as being “to prevent identitytheft or fraud and the various forms of mischief which identity theft may facilitate, and ... theharmonization of international and interprovincial standards for photo identification” (para. 10),associated with the issuance of motor vehicle driver’s licences. He concluded that the objective ofpreventing identity theft associated with driver’s licences, while limited, was “pressing andsubstantial” (para. 14).