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

licence holders are represented by a digital photo in the data bank will accomplish these securityrelatedobjectives more effectively than would an exemption for an as yet undetermined number ofreligious objectors. Any exemptions would undermine the certainty with which the government isable to say that a given licence corresponds to an identified individual and that no individual holdsmore than one licence. This evidence stands effectively uncontradicted.[81] Though it is difficult to quantify in exact terms how much risk of fraud would resultfrom permitted exemptions, it is clear that the internal integrity of the system would becompromised. In this respect, the present case may be contrasted with previous religious freedomcases where this Court has found that the potential risk was too speculative.[82] In Trinity Western University v. British Columbia College of Teachers, 2001 SCC 31,[2001] 1 S.C.R. 772, a risk was held to be overly speculative because there was insufficient evidencethat potentially discriminatory beliefs were actually resulting in discriminatory conduct. In thepresent case, by contrast, it is clear that the photo exemption would have a tangible impact on theintegrity of the licensing system because it would undermine one-to-one and one-to-many photocomparisons to verify identity.[83] Similarly, in Amselem, the “security concern” posed by the construction of personalsuccahs was purely speculative because there was no evidence that emergency exits were actuallybeing blocked. The appellants had offered to set up their succahs “in such a way that they would notblock any doors, would not obstruct fire lanes, [and] would pose no threat to safety or security inany way” (para. 89). The Court noted that “security concerns, if soundly established, would require