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

[22] However, Conrad J.A. went on to dispose of the case on the ground that the universalphoto requirement did not minimally impair the right, because it did not reasonably accommodateColony members’ s. 2(a) religious freedom. She noted that the claimants had enjoyed an exemptionfrom the requirement for close to 30 years, with no evidence of resultant harm. The result, accordingto Conrad J.A., was that “the impugned regulation offers only a very slight protection against therisk that a licence will be issued to an individual in a name other than his or her own, whilecompletely infringing the respondents’ rights” (para. 46). Conrad J.A. added that the effects of theregulation were disproportionate, in that “the mandatory photo requirement forces the HutterianBrethren to either breach a sincerely held religious belief against being photographed or to ceasedriving”, which would also have severe practical consequences for individuals in the community(para. 54).[23] Slatter J.A., dissenting, defined one of the goals of the universal photo requirement asmaximizing the reliability and integrity of driver’s licences as a widely used and respected methodof personal identification. He found that the limit on freedom of religion imposed by the photorequirement, while it might not eliminate all identity theft, was rationally connected to the objectiveof “[m]aking forgery or unauthorized driving more difficult” (para. 99).[24] On minimal impairment, Slatter J.A. proceeded on the basis that the government mustshow that it has accommodated the right to the point of undue hardship. The accommodationsoffered by the Province, while they would still limit the Colony members’ religion freedom, wouldgo some way to fulfilling the requirements of the Second Commandment, since members would nothave to look at their photos. He held that the accommodation proposed by the Colony claimants —