D. The Parties’ Submissions
 The appellants’ core submission is that the Policies impose
an unnecessary and therefore unreasonable limit on their religious
freedom. They submit that requiring a direct, individualized
referral is unnecessary, because reasonable alternatives can
achieve the same result, while respecting their freedom of religion.
Providing readily-available, generalized health care information
and a referral to the CCS, Telehealth or other informational
resources strikes a reasonable balance between religious freedom
and equitable patient access to health care.
 The appellants submit that the Divisional Court erred in
its s. 1 analysis, because (1) there is no rational connection
between the Policies and the objective of promoting equitable
access to health care; (2) mandatory, individualized referral does
not satisfy the minimal impairment branch of the proportionality
analysis and does not fall within a range of reasonable alternatives; and (3) the Divisional Court’s balancing of the salutary and
deleterious effects of the Policies was flawed by its erroneous
assumption that objecting physicians can insulate themselves
from the conflict with their religious beliefs by changing their
specialty or sub-specialty. The appellants also submit that the
Divisional Court erred in its s. 15(1) analysis.
 The College contends that (1) the Divisional Court should
have applied the reasonableness standard of review and the
framework articulated in Doré/Loyola rather than Oakes; (2) the
Divisional Court erred in finding a s. 2(a) breach, because any
interference with the appellants’ freedom of religion is “trivial
and insubstantial” in light of the availability of practice management alternatives set out in the Fact Sheet; and (3) alternatively,
if there is a s. 2(a) breach, regardless of whether the Doré/Loyola or
Oakes framework applies, any potential interference with freedom
of religion is justified under s. 1. The College also says that the
Divisional Court correctly found there was no s. 15(1) breach.
 I will discuss the submissions of the parties and the intervenors further in the Analysis section, below.
 The appeal raises the following issues:
(1) What is the applicable standard of review and is the
Doré/Loyola framework or the Oakes framework applicable
to this case?
(2) Do the effective referral requirements of the Policies infringe
the appellants’ s. 2(a) freedom of conscience and religion?