- Andrews v. Law Society of British Columbia
case-name=Andrews v. Law Society of British Columbia
full-case-name=The Law Society of British Columbia and The Attorney General of British Columbia v. Mark David Andrews and Gorel Elizabeth Kinersly
heard-date=October 5, 6, 1987
decided-date=February 2, 1989
citations=  1 S.C.R. 143
JoinMajority=Dickson C.J. and L'Heureux-Dubé JJ.
"Andrews v. Law Society of British Columbia",  1 SCR 143 is the first
Supreme Court of Canadacase to deal with section 15 (equality rights) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In the case the court outlined a test, sometimes called the Andrews test to determine if there has been a prima facie violation of equality rights.
Andrews, a British subject permanently resident in Canada, met all the requirements for admission to the provincial bar with the exception that he was not a Canadian citizen. Andrews brought a motion to strike down the requirement for citizenship on the grounds it violated "s. 15" of the Charter.
At the Trial level,
Supreme Court of British Columbiaheld in favour of the Law Society. On appeal to the British Columbia Court of Appealthe ruling was overturned.
The issue put to the court was whether the requirement of Canadian citizenship for admission to the British Columbia bar is an infringement upon or denial of the equality rights guaranteed by "s. 15(1)" of the Charter. And if so, whether it is justified under "s. 1".
The court held that the Law Society's rule violated "s. 15" and it could not be saved under "s. 1". The majority was written by Wilson J. with Dickson C.J. and L'Heureux-Dubé J. concurring.
In dissent McIntyre J. and Lamer J. disagreed on the point of the "s. 1" analysis, believing that it would be upheld on the basis of "reasonable limit". The opinion on the "test", however, was unanimous.
The court first defined a general approach to the equality guarantee. The court stated that the section is not a general guarantee of equality, rather it is only concerned with equal application of the law. It was further stated that it should be recognized that not all differences in treatment will result in inequality and that identical treatment may result in inequality.
As such, the suggestion to apply the same legal rules to groups or individuals who are "similarly situated" ("similarly situated test" where likes a treated alike and dislikes differently) was firmly rejected. The case of
Bliss v. Canada, a pre-Charter SCC case where a pregnant woman was denied employment benefits, was considered as an example of the problems with such an approach.
Instead the court concentrated on the prohibition on discrimination.
:". . . discrimination may be described as a distinction, whether intentional or not but based on grounds relating to the personal characteristics of the individual or group which has the effect of imposing burdens, obligations, or disadvantages on such individual or group not imposed on others, or which withholds or limits access to opportunities, benefits, and advantages available to other members of society. Distinctions based on personal characteristics attributed to an individual solely on the basis of association with a group will rarely escape the charge of discrimination, while those based on an individual’s merits and capacities will rarely be so classified." (p. 280)
The court states the discrimination must be based on an "enumerated or analogous grounds", and the individual seeking to strike down a law must demonstrate the existence of differential treatment based on either of the two grounds. From there the onus shifts to the Crown who must show the law justified under "s. 1".
Wikimedia Foundation. 2010.
Look at other dictionaries:
Law Society of Upper Canada v. Skapinker — SCCInfoBox case name=Law Society of Upper Canada v. Skapinker full case name=The Law Society of Upper Canada v. Joel Skapinker heard date=February 23, 24, 1984 decided date=May 3, 1984 citations=  1 S.C.R. 357 docket=17537 history=… … Wikipedia
Métis Nation British Columbia — Aboriginal peoples in Canada … Wikipedia
Law v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) — SCCInfoBox case name=Law v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) full case name=Law v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) heard date=January 20, 1998 December 3, 1998 decided date=March 25, 1999 citations=  1 S.C.R.… … Wikipedia
Columbia University — For other uses, see Columbia University (disambiguation). Columbia University in the City of New York … Wikipedia
Canadian University Society for Intercollegiate Debate — Formation 1978 Type Student debating organization Location … Wikipedia
University Philosophical Society — Founded 1683 Home Page TCDPhil.com Council of the University Philosophical Society, 327th Session President Eoin O Liatháin Secretary … Wikipedia
City University of New York School of Law — Motto Law in the Service of Human Needs Established 1983 Type Public Postgraduates … Wikipedia
Egan v. Canada — SCCInfoBox case name=Egan v. Canada full case name=James Egan and John Norris Nesbit v. Her Majesty The Queen in Right of Canada heard date=Argued November 1, 1994 decided date=Decided May 25, 1995 citations=  2 S.C.R. 513, 124 D.L.R. (4th) … Wikipedia
Article 1 De La Charte Canadienne Des Droits Et Libertés — Charte canadienne des droits et libertés | Généralités Annexe B de la Loi de 1982 sur le Canada, 1982 Élément de la Constitution du Canada … Wikipédia en Français
Article 1 de la Charte canadienne des droits et libertes — Article 1 de la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés Charte canadienne des droits et libertés | Généralités Annexe B de la Loi de 1982 sur le Canada, 1982 Élément de la Constitution du Canada … Wikipédia en Français