direct the caller to the most appropriate level of care and may
put the caller in contact with a health care professional who can
advise the caller concerning treatment.
 The College’s fresh evidence is directed toward two issues.
First, to establish that physicians may be able to change their “scope
of practice”, to practice in areas that do not raise moral and ethical
issues, without the need for re-certification. Second, to establish
through first-hand patient accounts, the hardship and risks
encountered by patients whose physicians refuse to provide an
effective referral and the inadequacy and inaccessibility of Internet
or telephone resources to meet the needs of certain patients.
 I shall refer to the fresh evidence in more detail when
I turn to the s. 1 analysis.
C. The Divisional Court’s Reasons
 To put the issues in context, I will summarize the reasons
of the Divisional Court. I will refer to those reasons in more
detail, where necessary, in the Analysis section, below.
 The Divisional Court considered several preliminary issues
before addressing the constitutionality of the Policies. First, it
rejected the appellants’ submission that the Policies are ultra vires
the College. This issue is not being pursued in this court. Second, it
found that the framework articulated in Oakes applied to the s. 1
analysis, rejecting the College’s submission that the framework
articulated in Doré v. Barreau du Québec,  1 S.C.R. 395,
 S.C.J. No. 12, 2012 SCC 12, and Loyola High School
v. Quebec (Attorney General),  1 S.C.R. 613,  S.C.J.
No. 12, 2015 SCC 12, applied. The core issue was the constitutionality of the provisions in policies of general application, rather
than the decisions to put those policies in place. Third, the Divisional Court found that correctness was the applicable standard
for the review of the constitutionality of the Policies.
 Turning to the constitutional issues, the Divisional Court
found that the effective referral requirements of the Policies
infringe the individual appellants’ s. 2(a) religious freedom. It
rejected the College’s argument that there is no infringement
because the burden of compliance with the Policies is “trivial or
insubstantial”. The Divisional Court found that while the suggestions listed in the Fact Sheet address the concerns of many
religious physicians, they do not address the concerns of all the
individual appellants. Therefore, the Divisional Court held that
the Policies infringe physicians’ freedom of religion because the
effect of the Policies is that at least some individual appellants
are not free to practice medicine in accordance with their