Andrews v Law Society of British Columbia
| Andrews v Law Society of British Columbia | |
|---|---|
|
|
| Hearing: October 5, 6, 1987 Judgment: February 2, 1989 |
|
| Full case name | The Law Society of British Columbia and The Attorney General of British Columbia v. Mark David Andrews and Gorel Elizabeth Kinersly |
| Citations | [1989] 1 S.C.R. 143 |
| Docket No. | 19956 |
| Prior history | Judgment for Andrews and Kinersly in the Court of Appeal for British Columbia. |
| Ruling | Appeal dismissed |
| Holding | |
| A rule which bars an entire class of persons from certain forms of employment, solely on the grounds of a lack of citizenship status and without consideration of educational and professional qualifications or the other attributes or merits of individuals in the group, infringes s. 15 equality rights. | |
| Court Membership | |
|
Chief Justice: Brian Dickson Puisne Justices: Jean Beetz, Willard Estey, William McIntyre, Antonio Lamer, Bertha Wilson, Gerald Le Dain, Gérard La Forest, Claire L'Heureux-Dubé |
|
| Reasons given | |
| Majority | Wilson J., joined by Dickson C.J. and L'Heureux-Dubé JJ. |
| Concur/dissent | La Forest |
| Dissent | McIntyre J., joined by Lamer J. |
| Beetz, Estley, and Le Dain JJ. took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. | |
Andrews v Law Society of British Columbia, [1989] 1 SCR 143 is the first Supreme Court of Canada case 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. This case expanded the application of s.15 of the Charter by adding analogous grounds for discrimination to the extent enumerated grounds.
Andrews, a British subject and a permanent 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 Columbia held in favour of the Law Society. On appeal to the British Columbia Court of Appeal the 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 section 42 of Barristers and Solicitors Act 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.
List of important figures in the appeal:
Irwin Nathanson, Q.C., and Rhys Davies, for the appellant Law Society of British Columbia.
Joseph Arvay, for the appellant Attorney General of British Columbia.
Elizabeth C. Goldberg and David Dinklecock, for the intervener the Attorney General for Ontario.
Jean-Yves Bernard and Julie Hudon, for the intervener the Attorney General of Quebec.
Alison Scott, for the intervener the Attorney General of Nova Scotia.
...
Wikipedia