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

one may find in the reasons suggestions that “achieving the objective” might actually mean lookinginto whether there exists an alternative means of reaching the objective “in a real and substantialmanner” (para. 55). What that would actually mean in practical terms may not be as clear as onecould wish. Nevertheless, these words appear to signal that, even at the minimal impairment stage,the objective might have to be redefined and circumscribed.[198] Indeed, one wonders how an objective could be satisfied in a real and substantial mannerwithout being read down somewhat. A different approach to the interpretation and application ofthe Oakes test would seem hard to reconcile with previous pronouncements of our Court. Our recentjudgment in Charkaoui v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2007 SCC 9, [2007] 1 S.C.R. 350,offers a fine example of a different understanding of the nature of the proportionality analysis.[199] In Charkaoui, our Court struck down in part, on s. 7 grounds, the security certificateregime set up under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27. It accepted thatthe security of Canada and the protection of intelligence sources were pressing and compellingobjectives. Nevertheless, the Court found that alternative measures might give sufficient protectionto confidential information. Important as they were, the objectives of the law were not treated asabsolute goals, which had to be realized in their perfect integrity. The objectives were recast, in fact,at a lower level than the state might have wished. The Court assessed the objectives, the impugnedmeans and the alternative means together, as necessary components of a seamless proportionalityanalysis (paras. 85-87).II. Conclusion