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

theft and the various mischiefs that flow from identity theft. The Province was entitled to passregulations dealing not only with the primary matter of highway safety, but with collateral problemsassociated with the licensing system. It was therefore entitled to adopt a regulation requiring photosof all drivers to be held in a digital photo bank, thereby minimizing the risk of identity theft to theextent possible.[46] Finally, as explained above, the fact that the specific objectives of the impugnedregulation were not debated or ratified by the legislature does not render them invalid for thepurposes of s. 1. If a regulation is validly enacted pursuant to delegated legislative authority, itsobjective can properly be evaluated under the test established in Oakes.[47] I conclude that the Province has established that the goal of ensuring the integrity of thedriver’s licensing system so as to minimize identity theft associated with that system is pressing andsubstantial. Having established that the limit on the right is a measure “prescribed by law” and thatthe asserted purpose of the limit is pressing and substantial, the remaining issue is whether the limitis proportionate, in the sense that it is rationally connected to the goal, limits the right as little asreasonably necessary, and is proportionate in its effects.(c) Is the Means by Which the Goal Is Furthered Proportionate?(i)Is the Limit Rationally Connected to the Purpose?[48] At this stage, the Province must show that the universal photo requirement is rationally