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

formed under compulsion of the State”: Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey,505 U.S. 833 (1992), at p. 851.[92] Canadian law reflects the fundamental proposition that the state cannot by law directlycompel religious belief or practice. Thus this Court has held that if the purpose of a law is tointerfere with religious practices, the law cannot be upheld: see Big M Drug Mart, Zylberberg v.Sudbury Board of Education (Director) (1988), 65 O.R. (2d) 641 (C.A.), and Canadian CivilLiberties Assn. v. Ontario (Minister of Education) (1990), 71 O.R. (2d) 341 (C.A.). To compelreligious practice by force of law deprives the individual of the fundamental right to choose his orher mode of religious experience, or lack thereof. Such laws will fail at the first stage of Oakes andproportionality will not need to be considered.[93] Cases of direct compulsion are straightforward. However, it may be more difficult tomeasure the seriousness of a limit on freedom of religion where the limit arises not from a directassault on the right to choose, but as the result of incidental and unintended effects of the law. Inmany such cases, the limit does not preclude choice as to religious belief or practice, but it doesmake it more costly.[94] The incidental effects of a law passed for the general good on a particular religiouspractice may be so great that they effectively deprive the adherent of a meaningful choice: seeEdwards Books. Or the government program to which the limit is attached may be compulsory, withthe result that the adherent is left with a stark choice between violating his or her religious belief anddisobeying the law: Multani. The absence of a meaningful choice in such cases renders the impact