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

the extent that it renders a digital photograph mandatory for individuals who claim a valid religiousobjection” (para. 39). Accordingly, he held that the amendment removing the regulation’sdiscretionary religions exemption was of no force and effect.B. Alberta Court of Appeal, 2007 ABCA 160, 77 Alta. L.R. (4th) 281[19] The majority, per Conrad J.A. (O’Brien J.A. concurring), dismissed the appeal.[20] Conrad J.A. characterized the purpose of the photo requirement narrowly as preventinglicence duplication in order to permit the ready identification of licensed drivers at the roadside andminimize the number of disqualified people operating motor vehicles. Reasoning that the regulation,enacted under the Traffic Safety Act, was confined to enhancing traffic safety, she held that the goalsof preventing identity theft, fraud and threats to public safety, could not be considered under s. 1.If the Province wished to assert these goals, in her view it should have enacted a law goingspecifically to these risks. She also noted the absence of legislative debate on the issue, suggestingthat this rendered the regulation suspect.[21] Conrad J.A. expressed doubt about whether the photo requirement was rationallyconnected to the objective of identification associated with traffic safety. Since over 700,000unlicensed Albertans are not in the facial recognition data bank, granting a few hundred Hutteritesan exemption from the photo requirement would not have a significant impact on the number ofidentities available for unlawful appropriation.