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

their s. 2(a) right. At this point, the seriousness of the effects of the limit on Colony members’freedom of religion falls to be addressed. Several points call for discussion.[87] A preliminary observation is that the seriousness of the limit on freedom of religionvaries from case to case, depending on “the nature of the right or freedom violated, the extent of theviolation, and the degree to which the measures which impose the limit trench upon the integralprinciples of a free and democratic society” (Oakes, at pp. 139-40).[88] The deleterious effects of a limit on freedom of religion requires us to consider theimpact in terms of Charter values, such as liberty, human dignity, equality, autonomy, and theenhancement of democracy: Thomson Newspapers, at para. 125; see also Health Services andSupport – Facilities Subsector Bargaining Assn. v. British Columbia, 2007 SCC 27, [2007] 2 S.C.R.391. The most fundamental of these values, and the one relied on in this case, is liberty — the rightof choice on matters of religion. As stated in Amselem, per Iacobucci J., religious freedom “revolvesaround the notion of personal choice and individual autonomy and freedom” (para. 40). The questionis whether the limit leaves the adherent with a meaningful choice to follow his or her religiousbeliefs and practices.[89] There is no magic barometer to measure the seriousness of a particular limit on areligious practice. Religion is a matter of faith, intermingled with culture. It is individual, yetprofoundly communitarian. Some aspects of a religion, like prayers and the basic sacraments, maybe so sacred that any significant limit verges on forced apostasy. Other practices may be optionalor a matter of personal choice. Between these two extremes lies a vast array of beliefs and practices,