Does reintroduction of the photo exception for religious reasons result in a dramatic increase in the number of applications for a Condition Code G licence?

I do not accept either of the Province’s arguments on this point. First, I am not persuaded by the suggestion that reintroduction of the photo exception will result in a dramatic increase in the number of applicants seeking this type of licence. An exception for religious beliefs has existed in this province for close to 30 years, and in that time only a tiny fraction of licence applicants have applied for a Condition Code G licence. A “flood gates” argument is thus difficult to make. Here, strong indicators exist as to how many individuals outside this litigation may come forward should the respondents succeed, as we know that at the time the exception was eliminated, 453 Albertans held permanent non-photo licences. This represented approximately 0.02 per cent of the total number of licences in this province. There is no indication that this number was an aberration from the other 28 years the exception was available, and there is no reason to believe that the figure would increase dramatically if the exception were reintroduced. It seems logical to conclude that if three years ago there were 453 Albertans who wished to drive but were unable, for religious reasons, to be photographed, there will be a similar number of people in that same position today. I note that where, as here, there is no evidence supporting a “flood gates” argument, pure speculation should not be substituted: Multani at para. 69; Eldridge v. British Columbia (Attorney General), 1997 CanLII 327 (SCC), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 624 at para. 89. Accordingly, this portion of the Province’s concern is not supportable.