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

[78] In my view, this is a case where the decisive analysis falls to be done at the final stageof Oakes. The first two elements of the proportionality test — rational connection and minimumimpairment — are satisfied, and the matter stands to be resolved on whether the “deleterious effectsof a measure on individuals or groups” outweigh the public benefit that may be gained from themeasure. In cases such as this, where the demand is that the right be fully respected withoutcompromise, the justification of the law imposing the limit will often turn on whether the deleteriouseffects are out of proportion to the public good achieved by the infringing measure.1. Salutary Effects[79] The first inquiry is into the benefits, or “salutary effects” associated with the legislativegoal. Three salutary effects of the universal photo requirement were raised on the evidence: (1)enhancing the security of the driver’s licensing scheme; (2) assisting in roadside safety andidentification; and (3) eventually harmonizing Alberta’s licensing scheme with those in otherjurisdictions.[80] The most important of these benefits and the one upon which Alberta principally reliesis the enhancement of the security or integrity of the driver’s licensing scheme. The photorequirement ensures both a “one-to-one” and “one-to-many” correspondence among licence holders.This makes it possible, through the use of computer software, to ensure that no person holds morethan one licence. It is clear on the evidence that the universal photo requirement enhances thesecurity of the licensing system and thus of Albertans. Mandatory photos represent a significantgain to the integrity and usefulness of the computer comparison system. In short, requiring that all