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

falls within a range of reasonable options available to address the goal of preserving the integrityof the driver’s licensing system. All other options would significantly increase the risk of identitytheft using driver’s licences. The measure seeks to realize the legislative goal in a minimallyintrusive way.[63] Much has been made of the fact that over 700 000 Albertans do not hold driver’slicences. The argument is that the risk posed by a few hundred potential religious objectors isminuscule as compared to the much larger group of unlicensed persons. This argument is acceptedby the dissent. In my view, it rests on an overly broad view of the objective of the driver’s licencephoto requirement as being to eliminate all identity theft in the province. Casting the governmentobjective in these broad terms, my colleague Abella J. argues that the risk posed by a few religiousdissenters is minimal, when compared to the general risk posed by unlicensed persons. But withrespect, that is the wrong comparison. We must take the government’s goal as it is. It is not thebroad goal of eliminating all identity theft, but the more modest goal of maintaining the integrity ofdriver’s licensing system so as to minimize identity theft associated with that system. The questionis whether, within that system, any exemptions, including for religious reasons, pose real risk to theintegrity of the licensing system.[64] The implication of Justice Abella’s reasoning is that because the province tolerates theidentity theft risk posed by unlicensed Albertans, it must therefore tolerate the risk associated withnon-photographed licensees. On this logic, the province would be required to take the more radicalapproach of requiring photographic identification for every Albertan, which would directlycontravene the respondents’ religious beliefs, before it could rely upon a security risk argument in