Is a defendant’s predominant motivation (i.e. religion or expression) to exercise s. 2(b) freedom of expression?

The plaintiff and interveners argue that a defendant’s predominant motivation (i.e., religion or expression) should govern according to McLachlin J.’s judgment in Young v. Young, supra. Thus, if the predominant motivation of conduct is religious and the activity does not fall within s. 2(a), that ends any consideration of the Charter. In other words, the defendant Ubertino cannot rely, in the alternative, on the “expressive” nature of her conduct and assert the exercise of a s. 2(b) freedom.