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

driver’s licences marked “not to be used for identification” — was no accommodation at all, butsimply “an assertion that nothing which infringes the second commandment can ever be justified”(para. 121). In addition, it would prevent police officers from using non-photo licences for the basicfunction of driver identification. Slatter J.A. found that the Colony claimants’ proposal wouldreduce the efficacy of the system with respect to identity theft. After alluding to harmonization withother systems, Slatter J.A. concluded that “[t]o require the [Province] to accommodate any furtherwould require it to significantly compromise a central feature of the security of the licensing system,and would amount to undue hardship” (para. 124).[25] Slatter J.A. concluded that the salutary effects of having the photos of all licence holdersin the data bank — regulating traffic safety and ensuring the integrity and reliability of the driver’slicence system to the benefit of Albertans — outweighed the deleterious effects on Colony members’freedom of religion. He observed that the Colony members object only to having their photos takenvoluntarily, and suggested that the element of state compulsion implied by the photo requirementwould “considerably diminish any disobedience to their religious tenets” (para. 126). For thosereasons, he took the view that “[i]n a free and democratic society minor infringements of this kindon religious doctrine can be tolerated” (para. 126).[26] Slatter J.A. accordingly concluded that the appeal should be allowed.IV. Issues[27] A. Freedom of religion