identified is firmly rooted in both the language of the Policies and
the history and evolution of the Policies themselves.
 The Divisional Court also found, at paras. 142, 146-150,
that this purpose was a pressing and substantial objective for
the purpose of the Oakes analysis and, at para. 150, that, “the
evidence in the record establishes a real risk of a deprivation
of equitable access to health care, particularly on the part of the
more vulnerable members of our society, in the absence of
the effective referral requirements of the Policies”.
 The appellants concede that it was open to the Divisional
Court to rely on a reasoned apprehension of harm to find that the
Policies serve a pressing and substantial objective. However, they
submit that a reasoned apprehension of harm cannot be relied on
in the last two branches of the Oakes proportionality analysis.
They say that evidence of actual harm is required for the minimal
impairment and proportionality analyses. This submission is
 The third requirement of the Oakes analysis is that the
means chosen to limit the right or freedom in question must
be reasonable and demonstrably justified. As noted, this requires
an analysis of whether (1) there is a rational connection between
the means and the objective; (2) the means are minimally
impairing; and (3) there is proportionality between the salutary
and deleterious effects of the measure: Oakes, at p. 139 S.C.R.;
and Carter, at para. 94.
( i) Rational connection
 The first step in the proportionality analysis asks whether
the means limiting the Charter right or freedom are rationally
connected to the objective. That is, whether they are designed to
further the objective. They must not be arbitrary, unfair or based
on irrational considerations: Oakes, at p. 139 S.C.R.
 The College must show, by reason and logic, and on
a balance of probabilities, that the restriction on the Charter right
or freedom serves its intended purpose: RJR-MacDonald Inc.
v. Canada (Attorney General),  3 S.C.R. 199,  S.C.J.
No. 68, at para. 153. This prevents arbitrary interference with
the right or freedom: Hutterian Brethren, at para. 48.
 The Divisional Court found a rational connection
between the effective referral requirements and the stated purpose. The limits on physicians’ religious freedom would likely
further the goal of equitable access to health care. At para. 154,
the Divisional Court stated: