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

self-sufficiency, but there is no evidence that this would be prohibitive. It is impossible to concludethat Colony members have been deprived of a meaningful choice to follow or not to follow theedicts of their religion. When the deleterious effects are balanced against the salutary effects of theimpugned regulation, the impact of the limit on religious practice associated with the universal photorequirement is proportionate. [4] [79-80] [82] [91] [96-98] [100] [103]The impugned regulation does not infringe s. 15 of the Charter. Assuming it could beshown that the regulation creates a distinction on the enumerated ground of religion, it arises notfrom any demeaning stereotype but from a neutral and rationally defensible policy choice. Thereis therefore no discrimination within the meaning of s. 15. [108]Per Abella J. (dissenting): The government of Alberta did not discharge its burden ofdemonstrating that the infringement of the Hutterites’ freedom of religion is justified under s. 1 ofthe Charter. [176]The purpose of the mandatory photo requirement and the use of facial recognitiontechnology is to help prevent identity theft. An exemption to the photo requirement for theHutterites was in place for 29 years without evidence that the integrity of the licensing system washarmed in any way. In addition, more than 700,000 Albertans have no driver’s licence and aretherefore not in the facial recognition database. The benefit to that system therefore, of adding thephotographs of around 250 Hutterites who may wish to drive, is only marginally useful to theprevention of identity theft. While the salutary effects of the mandatory photo requirement aretherefore slight and largely hypothetical, the mandatory photo requirement seriously harms the