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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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 <strong>Alberta</strong>ns — 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
1. The nature of the limit on the s. 2(a) right;2. Is the limit on the s. 2(a) right justified under s. 1 of the Charter?(a) Is the limit prescribed by law?(b) Is the purpose for which the limit is imposed pressing or substantial?(c) Is the means by which the goal is furthered proportionate?(i) Is the limit rationally connected to the purpose?(ii) Does the limit minimally impair the right?(iii) Is the law proportionate in its effect?(d) Conclusion on justificationB. The claim under s. 15V. AnalysisA. Freedom of Religion(1) The Nature of the Limit on the Section 2(a) Right[28] Section 2(a) of the Charter states that “[e]veryone has ... freedom of conscience andreligion”.[29] The members of the Colony believe that permitting their photo to be taken violates the
Page 1 and 2: SUPREME COURT OF CANADACITATION: Al
Page 3 and 4: Present: McLachlin C.J. and Binnie,
Page 5 and 6: Per McLachlin C.J. and Binnie, Desc
Page 7 and 8: self-sufficiency, but there is no e
Page 9 and 10: Under s. 1, courts have only rarely
Page 11 and 12: Quebec (Attorney General), [1989] 1
Page 14 and 15: Taylor, Charles. Philosophical Argu
Page 16 and 17: [1] The Province of Alberta require
Page 18 and 19: taken for “facial recognition sof
Page 20 and 21: The second is simply that a digital
Page 22 and 23: the extent that it renders a digita
Page 26 and 27: Second Commandment: “You shall no
Page 28 and 29: [34] The record does not disclose a
Page 30 and 31: [39] Section 1 requires that before
Page 32 and 33: [43] The chambers judge found that
Page 34 and 35: connected to the goal of preserving
Page 36 and 37: ight is reasonably tailored to the
Page 38 and 39: associated with driver’s licences
Page 40 and 41: falls within a range of reasonable
Page 42 and 43: duty to accommodate, which applies
Page 44 and 45: impairing of the right and proporti
Page 46 and 47: need to realize it, the test of pro
Page 48 and 49: licence holders are represented by
Page 50 and 51: their s. 2(a) right. At this point,
Page 52 and 53: formed under compulsion of the Stat
Page 54 and 55: [97] The Hutterian claimants argue
Page 56 and 57: [103] Balancing the salutary and de
Page 58 and 59: each of s. 15(1).VI. Conclusion[109
Page 60 and 61: R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd., [1985]
Page 62 and 63: property and live together in relig
Page 64 and 65: eliefs.In short, the Attorney Gener
Page 66 and 67: (See also Jeremy Webber “The Irre
Page 68 and 69: [133] Section 1 of the Charter stat
Page 70 and 71: ationally connected to the legislat
Page 72 and 73: [148] In RJR-MacDonald, McLachlin J
Page 74 and 75:
measure need to be assessed in ligh
Page 76 and 77:
[159] It is worth noting too that i
Page 78 and 79:
of the Hutterian community:The Hutt
Page 80 and 81:
“privilege”. This approach, wit
Page 82 and 83:
The following are the reasons deliv
Page 84 and 85:
of the case.B. Section 1: The Oakes
Page 86 and 87:
question (the “minimal impairment
Page 88 and 89:
It is at these stages that the mean
Page 90 and 91:
absolute and should not be treated
Page 92 and 93:
[200] As to the outcome of this cas
Page 94:
General, Toronto.Solicitor for the
show all

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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?