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

[103] Balancing the salutary and deleterious effects of the law, I conclude that the impact ofthe limit on religious practice associated with the universal photo requirement for obtaining adriver’s licence, is proportionate.(d) Conclusion on Justification[104] I conclude that the limit on the Colony members’ freedom of religion imposed by theuniversal photo requirement for holders of driver’s licences has been shown to be justified under s.1 of the Charter. The goal of minimizing the risk of fraud associated with driver’s licences ispressing and substantial. The limit is rationally connected to the goal. The limit impairs the rightas little as reasonably possible in order to achieve the goal; the only alternative proposed wouldsignificantly compromise the goal of minimizing the risk. Finally, the measure is proportionate interms of effects: the positive effects associated with the limit are significant, while the impact on theclaimants, while not trivial, does not deprive them of the ability to follow their religious convictions.B. The Claim under Section 15[105] The s. 15 claim was not considered at any length by the courts below and addressed onlysummarily by the parties in this Court. In my view, it is weaker than the s. 2(a) claim and can easilybe dispensed with. To the extent that the s. 15(1) argument has any merit, many of my reasons fordismissing the s. 2(a) claim apply to it as well.