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

taken not to overstate the objective. The objective relevant to the s. 1 analysis is the objective of theinfringing measure . . . . If the objective is stated too broadly, its importance may be exaggerated andthe analysis compromised” (para. 144 (emphasis in original)).[138] Alberta acknowledged that it is not attempting to justify the photo requirement on thebasis that it allows for quick and efficient driver identification at the side of the road. The exemptionto the photograph requirement was in place for 29 years without any demonstrably negative effectson roadside enforcement.[139] Instead, Alberta stated that the purpose of the mandatory photo requirement was toensure that every individual who has applied for a licence is represented in the Province’s facialrecognition database. This database helps prevent an individual from applying for a licence inanother person’s name. Driver’s licences are a widely accepted form of identification. Falselicences can be used to gain other fraudulent documentation. The objective, therefore, is to protectthe integrity of the licensing system and its consequential benefit is the minimization of the risk ofidentity theft.[140] I agree with the majority that this objective is an important one.Rational Connection[141] At the “rational connection” step in the proportionality analysis, the seemingly easiesthurdle in the Oakes analysis, the Government must demonstrate that the infringing measure is