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

G licences in place for 29 years as an exemption to the photo requirement, caused any harm at allto the integrity of the licensing system. As a result, there is no basis for determining why theexemption is no longer feasible, or so dramatically obstructs the government’s objective that itcannot be re-instated.[157] In his affidavit, Mr. Pendleton noted that “[t]o date, we have been successful in makingarrangements to accommodate the concerns of others who have religious reservations regarding adriver’s licence photograph” (para. 42). The only example he provided of a problem involving aCondition Code G licence, was a “Caucasian man” who sought a Condition Code G licence, basedupon his commitment to native spirituality. He was refused because he was not a member of anyrecognized organization or denomination that shared his beliefs. This singular example does notseem to me to represent “cogent and persuasive” evidence of the necessity of a mandatoryphotograph. (See also Bothwell v. Ontario (Minister of Transportation) (2005), 24 Admin. L.R.(4th) 288 (Ont. Div. Ct.).)[158] 700,000 Albertans are without a driver’s licence. That means that 700,000 Albertanshave no photograph in the system that can be checked by facial recognition technology. Whileadding approximately 250 licence holders to the database will reduce some opportunity for identitytheft, it is hard to see how it will make a significant impact on preventing it when there are alreadyseveral hundred thousand unlicenced and therefore unphotographed Albertans. Since there are somany others who are not in the database, the benefit of adding the photographs of the few Hutteriteswho wish to drive, would be marginal.