The Hutterian Brethren of Wilson Colony challenged the law demanding photographs be taken and affixed to drivers’ licences within the province of Alberta, a requirement for most provinces’ licensing plans.
The argument was based on religious freedom and based on their interpretation of the Second Commandment: “You shall not make for yourself a graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath.”
They argued that “likeness” included photographs. They felt the special exemption they’d held for years under Alberta law should be continued and that their rights under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms had been violated.
Read Also
Canola council cuts field agronomy team
The Canola Council of Canada is cutting its agronomy team as part of a “refreshed strategic framework.”
Alberta had done away with this special status in 2003, feeling photographs were necessary to combat identity theft. They gave notice of the withdrawal of this exemption from photography and took the position that it was now a universal requirement of licensing.
The colony successfully challenged the law in the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench and it was upheld in the Court of Appeal, Alberta’s highest internal court.
The provincial government took the case to the Supreme Court of Canada.
It ruled in favour of Alberta and reversed the two lower court decisions by a slim margin of 4 to 3.
The majority of the Supreme Court reasoned that driving was a privilege, not a right, and no one was forced to seek or obtain a driver’s licence.
People who choose to drive must comply with all provincial licensing laws. The judges didn’t think that this deprived some people of the choice to follow, or not follow, the tenets of their religion because the law did not compel the taking of a photo but merely required the taking of a photo if a licence was desired.
“Driving automobiles on highways is not a right, but a privilege. While most adult citizens hold driver’s licences, many do not, for a variety of reasons,” the chief justice reported.
The majority said the colony members could hire third parties with licences to do all chores involving driving on public highways if they wished. There was a balance to be struck between religious beliefs and the legitimate objectives of the government.
The dissenting judges agreed with the colony. They noted the exemption had worked fine for almost 30 years and wasn’t creating any problems.
The change in the law would have a “dramatic” effect on colony members but only a “marginal” benefit for Alberta.
It’s fascinating to see how the modern battles between religious and secular rights are dealt with by our nation’s highest courts.
Rick Danyliuk is a practising lawyer in Saskatoon with McDougall Gauley LLP. He also has experience in teaching and writing about legal issues. His columns are intended as general advice only. Individuals are encouraged to seek other opinions and/or
personal counsel when dealing with legal matters.
