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

equirement, assumes that some increase in risk and impairment of the government goal may occur,and hence does not assist at the stage of minimal impairment.[60] The claimants’ proposal, instead of asking what is minimally required to realize thelegislative goal, asks the government to significantly compromise it. An exemption for anunspecified number of religious objectors would mean that the one-to-one correspondence betweenissued licences and photos in the data bank would be lost. As shown by the Province, this disparitycould well be exploited by wrongdoers. Contrary to the suggestion of LeBel J. (para. 201), theevidence discloses no alternative measures which would substantially satisfy the government’sobjective while allowing the claimants to avoid being photographed. In short, the alternativeproposed by the claimants would significantly compromise the government’s objective and istherefore not appropriate for consideration at the minimal impairment stage.[61] This is not to suggest the Colony members are acting improperly. Freedom of religioncases may often present this “all or nothing” dilemma. Compromising religious beliefs is somethingadherents may understandably be unwilling to do. And governments may find it difficult to tailorlaws to the myriad ways in which they may trench on different people’s religious beliefs andpractices. The result may be that the justification of a limit on the right falls to be decided not at thepoint of minimal impairment, which proceeds on the assumption the state goal is valid, but at thestage of proportionality of effects, which is concerned about balancing the benefits of the measureagainst its negative effects.[62] I conclude that the universal photo requirement minimally impairs the s. 2(a) right. It