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

eligious rights of the Hutterites and threatens their autonomous ability to maintain their communalway of life. The impugned regulation and the alternatives presented by the government involve thetaking of a photograph. This is the very act that offends the religious beliefs of the Wilson Colonymembers. This makes the mandatory photo requirement a form of indirect coercion that places theWilson Colony members in the untenable position of having to choose between compliance withtheir religious beliefs or giving up the self-sufficiency of their community, a community that hashistorically preserved its religious autonomy through its communal independence. [148] [156] [158][162] [164] [170]The harm to the constitutional rights of the Hutterites, in the absence of an exemption,is dramatic. On the other hand, the benefits to the province of requiring the Hutterites to bephotographed are, at best, marginal. This means that the serious harm caused by the infringingmeasure weighs far more heavily on the s. 1 scales than the benefits the province gains from itsimposition on the Hutterites. The province has therefore not discharged its onus of justifying theimposition of a mandatory photo requirement on the members of the Wilson Colony. [114-115]Per LeBel J. (dissenting): Abella J.’s comments on the nature of the guarantee offreedom of religion under s. 2(a) of the Charter and with her opinion that the impugned regulation,which limits freedom of religion, has not been properly justified under s. 1 of the Charter are bothagreed with. The regulatory measures in issue have an impact not only on the Hutterites’ beliefsystem, but also on the life of the community. The majority’s reasons understate the nature andimportance of this aspect of the guarantee of freedom of religion. [178] [182]