This paper explores how a key aspect of the Supreme Court of Canada's articulation of freedom of religion fits with the court's developing jurisprudence on constitutional review of government action more generally. In particular, we examine how the 2009 decision, Hutterian Brethren of Wilson Colony v. Alberta, which rejects incorporating concepts of accommodation into the s. I minimal impairment test, reflects the court's evolving thinking on whether and how constitutional challenges to legislation should be differentiated from constitutional challenges to other forms of governmental activity.