The case of Andrews v Law Society of British Columbia (1989) is a monumental case in the context of Canadian Law as it sets the standard for what is considered discrimination against equality in the eyes of s. 15 in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms [hereinafter, Charter]. This paper will examine the decision by the Supreme Court of British Columbia and the subsequent decisions by the British Columbia Court of Appeal and Supreme Court of Canada, and will then comment on the lasting impact of these decisions. The Andrews case added two new infringements, numerous relevant principles under s. 15, and a test to be applied when considering Section 15 that will be discussed in this paper in regard to their future context (Hurley, 2007).
The 3 …show more content…
42 of the Barristers and Solicitors Act, R.S.B.C. 1979, c. 26 infringes or denies the rights guaranteed by s. 15 (1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, is it justified by s. 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?”
Judge McIntyre (1987) answered “yes” to both of these questions, thus suggesting to overturn the decision made by Judge McLachlin. On the contrary, Judge La Forest (1987) and the rest of the Supreme Court judges answered “yes” to (1) and “no” to (2), hence agreeing with Judge McLachlin. Since Judge McIntyre was the only judge to answer “yes” to both constitutional questions, the appeal by the Law Society was consequently dismissed as the court was 8-1 in favor of such dismissal and the Court of Appeal decision (Judge McLachlin) stood.
Major Issues in the Andrews …show more content…
15 of the Charter. The idea of citizenship being a ground to be discriminated against was an entirely new construct in 1985. The two sides of the argument were: citizenship should be required as it shows an understanding of Canadian values, and, citizenship is comparable to race and ethnicity as it is not chosen but rather is assigned by birth, thus declining someone based on this ground is discrimination. Each argument has its faults, as Judge McLachlin (1986) pointed out citizenship has no real bearing on knowledge of ones’ countries’ values as one can live in another country yet still hold Canadian citizenship. While on the other side, some argued citizenship is different from race and ethnicity as it can be obtained, while race and ethnicity are permanent. Many scholars have noted that the key to a successful society is giving everyone equal opportunity, or “equal consideration” (Hopkins, 2015, p.2). This very concept hits at the core of Canadian society. Canada has been referred to as a “cultural mosaic” in comparison to a “melting pot” (such as the US) (Levine & Serbeh-Dunn, 1999). The notion of a “cultural mosaic” refers to the idea that we accept all other cultures. In my opinion the idea of having lawyers from multiple cultural backgrounds can only be beneficial. Having a wide range of opinions added to legal profession should help progress the legislation in Canada and ultimately advance