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

associated with driver’s licences.[57] The Province proposes alternatives which maintain the universal photo requirement, butminimize its impact on Colony members by eliminating or alleviating the need for them to carryphotos. This would permit the Province to achieve its goal of a maximally efficient photorecognition system to combat fraud associated with driver’s licences, while reducing the impact onthe members’ s. 2(a) rights.[58] However, the Hutterian claimants reject these proposals. For them, the only acceptablemeasure is one that entirely removes the limit on their s. 2(a) rights. They object to any photo beingtaken and held in a photo data bank. For them, the only alternative is a driver’s licence issuedwithout a photo, stamped with the words, “Not to be used for identification purposes”.[59] The problem with the claimants’ proposal in the context of the minimum impairmentinquiry is that it compromises the Province’s goal of minimizing the risk of misuse of driver’slicences for identity theft. The stamp “not to be used for identification purposes” might prevent aperson who comes into physical possession of such a licence from using it as a breeder document,but it would not prevent a person from assuming the identity of the licence holder and producing afake document, which could not be checked in the absence of a photo in the data bank. As SlatterJ.A. pointed out, without the photo in the bank, the bank is neutralized and the risk that the identityof the holder can be stolen and used for fraudulent purposes is increased. The only way to reducethat risk as much as possible is through a universal photo requirement. The claimants’ argument thatthe reduction in risk would be low, since few people are likely to request exemption from the photo