35 In considering the present legislation, Newbury J.A. reasoned that a mother who wanted to unacknowledge a father for bona fide reasons might falsify the birth registration to avoid negative effects flowing from a father's subsequent attempt to alter the registration or participate in determining the child's surname (at paras. 177 and 183-86). If legislation does not provide for the possibility of such an attempt, the incentive for a mother to falsify the registration is reduced, and so is the likelihood of such falsification. By excluding precisely this possibility, the present legislation aims at furthering accurate reporting, and is therefore rationally connected to the legislative objective.
36 Although the legislative means are rationally connected to the legislative objective, if it can be shown that they do not minimally impair the right at issue, they will still fail to satisfy the proportionality element of the Oakes test (supra, at p. 139). In applying the minimal impairment requirement, a court is required to afford the legislature a margin of appreciation (Irwin Toy Ltd. v. Quebec (Attorney General),  1 S.C.R. 927, at p. 999). That a court can propose means that are less impairing than the impugned legislation is not sufficient to give rise to a finding that an impairment is not minimal (Reference re ss. 193 and 195.1(1)(c) of the Criminal Code (Man.), supra, at p. 1138). However, if legislation does not impair an individual's rights "as little as is reasonably possible" (R. v. Edwards Books and Art Ltd.,  2 S.C.R. 713, at p. 772), if in other words, legislation falls beyond "a range of reasonable alternatives" (RJR-MacDonald Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General),  3 S.C.R. 199, at para. 160), it will not satisfy the minimal impairment requirement.