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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

each of s. 15(1).VI. Conclusion[109] The impugned regulation is a reasonable limit on religious freedom, demonstrablyjustified in a free and democratic society. I would therefore allow the appeal. The constitutionalquestions stated in my order of January 16, 2008 should be answered as follows:1. Does s. 14(1)(b) of <strong>Alberta</strong>’s Operator Licensing and Vehicle Control Regulation,Alta. Reg. 320/2002, as amended by Alta. Reg. 137/2003, infringe s. 2(a) of theCanadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?Answer: Yes.2. If so, is the infringement a reasonable limit prescribed by law as can bedemonstrably justified in a free and democratic society under s. 1 of the CanadianCharter of Rights and Freedoms?Answer: Yes.3. Does s. 14(1)(b) of <strong>Alberta</strong>’s Operator Licensing and Vehicle Control Regulation,Alta. Reg. 320/2002, as amended by Alta. Reg. 137/2003, infringe s. 15(1) of theCanadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?Answer: No.4. If so, is the infringement a reasonable limit prescribed by law as can bedemonstrably justified in a free and democratic society under s. 1 of the CanadianCharter of Rights and Freedoms?
Answer: It is not necessary to answer this question.The following are the reasons delivered byABELLA J. —[110] Freedom of religion is a core, constitutionally protected democratic value. To justifyits impairment, therefore, the government must demonstrate that the benefits of the infringementoutweigh the harm it imposes. This was enunciated by Dickson C.J. in R. v. Oakes, [1986] 1 S.C.R.103, where he developed the test under s. 1 for justifying limits to constitutional rights:Even if an objective is of sufficient importance, . . . it is still possible that, because ofthe severity of the deleterious effects of a measure on individuals or groups, the measurewill not be justified by the purposes it is intended to serve. The more severe thedeleterious effects of a measure, the more important the objective must be if the measureis to be reasonable and demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. [p. 140]And in Liberty of Conscience: In Defense of America’s Tradition of Religious Equality (2008),Martha C. Nussbaum similarly observed that:Some such burdens to religion may have to be borne, if the peace and safety of the stateare really at stake, or if there is some other extremely strong state interest. But it seemsdeeply wrong for the state to put citizens in such a tragic position needlessly, or inmatters of less weight. And often matters lying behind laws of general applicability arenot so weighty. [p. 117][111] It may be, however, that the nature of the particular religious duty brings it into seriousconflict with countervailing and compelling social values and imperatives. As Dickson J. stated in
Page 1 and 2:
SUPREME COURT OF CANADACITATION: Al
Page 3 and 4:
Present: McLachlin C.J. and Binnie,
Page 5 and 6:
Per McLachlin C.J. and Binnie, Desc
Page 7 and 8: self-sufficiency, but there is no e
Page 9 and 10: Under s. 1, courts have only rarely
Page 11 and 12: Quebec (Attorney General), [1989] 1
Page 14 and 15: Taylor, Charles. Philosophical Argu
Page 16 and 17: [1] The Province of Alberta require
Page 18 and 19: taken for “facial recognition sof
Page 20 and 21: The second is simply that a digital
Page 22 and 23: the extent that it renders a digita
Page 24 and 25: driver’s licences marked “not t
Page 26 and 27: Second Commandment: “You shall no
Page 28 and 29: [34] The record does not disclose a
Page 30 and 31: [39] Section 1 requires that before
Page 32 and 33: [43] The chambers judge found that
Page 34 and 35: connected to the goal of preserving
Page 36 and 37: ight is reasonably tailored to the
Page 38 and 39: associated with driver’s licences
Page 40 and 41: falls within a range of reasonable
Page 42 and 43: duty to accommodate, which applies
Page 44 and 45: impairing of the right and proporti
Page 46 and 47: need to realize it, the test of pro
Page 48 and 49: licence holders are represented by
Page 50 and 51: their s. 2(a) right. At this point,
Page 52 and 53: formed under compulsion of the Stat
Page 54 and 55: [97] The Hutterian claimants argue
Page 56 and 57: [103] Balancing the salutary and de
Page 60 and 61: R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd., [1985]
Page 62 and 63: property and live together in relig
Page 64 and 65: eliefs.In short, the Attorney Gener
Page 66 and 67: (See also Jeremy Webber “The Irre
Page 68 and 69: [133] Section 1 of the Charter stat
Page 70 and 71: ationally connected to the legislat
Page 72 and 73: [148] In RJR-MacDonald, McLachlin J
Page 74 and 75: measure need to be assessed in ligh
Page 76 and 77: [159] It is worth noting too that i
Page 78 and 79: of the Hutterian community:The Hutt
Page 80 and 81: “privilege”. This approach, wit
Page 82 and 83: The following are the reasons deliv
Page 84 and 85: of the case.B. Section 1: The Oakes
Page 86 and 87: question (the “minimal impairment
Page 88 and 89: It is at these stages that the mean
Page 90 and 91: absolute and should not be treated
Page 92 and 93: [200] As to the outcome of this cas
Page 94: General, Toronto.Solicitor for the
show all

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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?