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

government choose the least drastic means of achieving its objective. Less drastic means which donot actually achieve the government’s objective are not considered at this stage.[55] I hasten to add that in considering whether the government’s objective could be achievedby other less drastic means, the court need not be satisfied that the alternative would satisfy theobjective to exactly the same extent or degree as the impugned measure. In other words, the courtshould not accept an unrealistically exacting or precise formulation of the government’s objectivewhich would effectively immunize the law from scrutiny at the minimal impairment stage. Therequirement for an “equally effective” alternative measure in the passage from RJR-MacDonald,quoted above, should not be taken to an impractical extreme. It includes alternative measures thatgive sufficient protection, in all the circumstances, to the government’s goal: Charkaoui v. Canada(Citizenship and Immigration), 2007 SCC 9, [2007] 1 S.C.R. 350. While the government is entitledto deference in formulating its objective, that deference is not blind or absolute. The test at theminimum impairment stage is whether there is an alternative, less drastic means of achieving theobjective in a real and substantial manner. As I will explain, in my view the record in this casediscloses no such alternative.[56] The purpose of the limit in this case, I earlier concluded, is to maintain the integrity ofthe driver’s licensing system by minimizing the risk of driver’s licences being used for purposes ofidentity theft, so as to prevent fraud and various other misuses of the system. The regulation is partof a complex regulatory scheme and is aimed at an emerging and challenging problem. Thequestion, therefore, is whether the means chosen to further its purpose — the universal photorequirement for all licensed drivers — is reasonably tailored to address the problem of identity theft