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

[34] The record does not disclose a concession on the second element of the test — whetherthe universal photo requirement interferes with Colony members’ religious freedom in a manner thatis more than trivial or insubstantial. In order for such a determination to be made, it would need tobe shown that the claimants’ “religious beliefs or conduct might reasonably or actually bethreatened” by the universal photo requirement: see Edwards Books, at p. 759. Evidence of astate-imposed cost or burden would not suffice; there would need to be evidence that such a burdenwas “capable of interfering with religious belief or practice”: Edwards Books, at p. 759. In thepresent case, however, the courts below seem to have proceeded on the assumption that thisrequirement was met. Given this assumption, I will proceed to consider whether the limit is areasonable one, demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.(2) Is the Limit on the Section 2(a) Right Justified Under Section 1 of the Charter?[35] This Court has recognized that a measure of leeway must be accorded to governmentsin determining whether limits on rights in public programs that regulate social and commercialinteractions are justified under s. 1 of the Charter. Often, a particular problem or area of activity canreasonably be remedied or regulated in a variety of ways. The schemes are typically complex, andreflect a multitude of overlapping and conflicting interests and legislative concerns. They mayinvolve the expenditure of government funds, or complex goals like reducing antisocial behaviour.The primary responsibility for making the difficult choices involved in public governance falls onthe elected legislature and those it appoints to carry out its policies. Some of these choices maytrench on constitutional rights.[36] Freedom of religion presents a particular challenge in this respect because of the broad