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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

[200] As to the outcome of this case, I agree with the reasons of Justice Abella and with thesubstance of her views on the lack of justification for the regulation under s. 1. Religious rights arecertainly not unlimited. They may have to be restricted in the context of broader social values. Butthey are fundamental rights protected by the Constitution. The Government of Alberta had to provethat the limitations on the religious right were justified. Like Justice Abella, I believe that theGovernment of Alberta has failed to demonstrate that the regulation is a proportionate response tothe identified societal problem of identity theft.[201] Moreover, the driver’s licence that it denies is not a privilege. It is not granted at thediscretion of governments. Every would-be driver is entitled to a licence provided that he or shemeets the required conditions and qualifications. Such a licence, as we know, is often of criticalimportance in daily life and is certainly so in rural Alberta. Other approaches to identity fraud mightbe devised that would fall within a reasonable range of options and that could establish a properbalance between the social and constitutional interests at stake. This balance cannot be obtained bybelittling the impact of the measures on the beliefs and religious practices of the Hutterites and byasking them to rely on taxi drivers and truck rental services to operate their farms and to preservetheir way of life. Absolute safety is probably impossible in a democratic society. A limitedrestriction on the Province’s objective of minimizing identity theft would not unduly compromisethis aspect of the security of Alberta residents and might lie within the range of reasonable andconstitutional alternatives. Indeed, the Province’s stated purpose is not set in stone and does not needto be achieved at all costs. The infringing measure was implemented in order to reach a hypotheticalobjective of minimizing identity theft, by requiring driver’s licences with photos. But a smallnumber of people carrying a driver’s licence without a photo will not significantly compromise the
safety of the residents of Alberta. On the other hand, under the impugned regulation, a small groupof people is being made to carry a heavy burden. The photo requirement was not a proportionatelimitation of the religious rights at stake.[202] For these reasons and those of my colleague, Justice Abella, I would dismiss the appealwith costs.The following are the reasons delivered byFISH J. —[203] Like Justice LeBel, and for the reasons he has given, I agree with Justice Abella andwould dispose of the appeal as they both suggest.Appeal allowed, LEBEL, FISH and ABELLA JJ. dissenting.Solicitor for the appellant: Alberta Justice, Edmonton.Solicitors for the respondents: Peterson & Purvis, Lethbridge.Ottawa.Solicitor for the intervener the Attorney General of Canada: Department of Justice,
Page 1 and 2:
SUPREME COURT OF CANADACITATION: Al
Page 3 and 4:
Present: McLachlin C.J. and Binnie,
Page 5 and 6:
Per McLachlin C.J. and Binnie, Desc
Page 7 and 8:
self-sufficiency, but there is no e
Page 9 and 10:
Under s. 1, courts have only rarely
Page 11 and 12:
Quebec (Attorney General), [1989] 1
Page 14 and 15:
Taylor, Charles. Philosophical Argu
Page 16 and 17:
[1] The Province of Alberta require
Page 18 and 19:
taken for “facial recognition sof
Page 20 and 21:
The second is simply that a digital
Page 22 and 23:
the extent that it renders a digita
Page 24 and 25:
driver’s licences marked “not t
Page 26 and 27:
Second Commandment: “You shall no
Page 28 and 29:
[34] The record does not disclose a
Page 30 and 31:
[39] Section 1 requires that before
Page 32 and 33:
[43] The chambers judge found that
Page 34 and 35:
connected to the goal of preserving
Page 36 and 37:
ight is reasonably tailored to the
Page 38 and 39:
associated with driver’s licences
Page 40 and 41:
falls within a range of reasonable
Page 42 and 43: duty to accommodate, which applies
Page 44 and 45: impairing of the right and proporti
Page 46 and 47: need to realize it, the test of pro
Page 48 and 49: licence holders are represented by
Page 50 and 51: their s. 2(a) right. At this point,
Page 52 and 53: formed under compulsion of the Stat
Page 54 and 55: [97] The Hutterian claimants argue
Page 56 and 57: [103] Balancing the salutary and de
Page 58 and 59: each of s. 15(1).VI. Conclusion[109
Page 60 and 61: R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd., [1985]
Page 62 and 63: property and live together in relig
Page 64 and 65: eliefs.In short, the Attorney Gener
Page 66 and 67: (See also Jeremy Webber “The Irre
Page 68 and 69: [133] Section 1 of the Charter stat
Page 70 and 71: ationally connected to the legislat
Page 72 and 73: [148] In RJR-MacDonald, McLachlin J
Page 74 and 75: measure need to be assessed in ligh
Page 76 and 77: [159] It is worth noting too that i
Page 78 and 79: of the Hutterian community:The Hutt
Page 80 and 81: “privilege”. This approach, wit
Page 82 and 83: The following are the reasons deliv
Page 84 and 85: of the case.B. Section 1: The Oakes
Page 86 and 87: question (the “minimal impairment
Page 88 and 89: It is at these stages that the mean
Page 90 and 91: absolute and should not be treated
Page 94: General, Toronto.Solicitor for the
show all

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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?