Andrews v Law Society of British Columbia

Andrews, a UK-trained lawyer, was barred from BC Bar admission because he was not a Canadian citizen. The SCC struck down the citizenship requirement and gave Canada its first comprehensive interpretation of equality under s.15 of the Charter.

Andrews met every requirement for admission to the BC bar except Canadian citizenship. He challenged the requirement under s.15(1).

(1) What is the proper interpretation of s.15? (2) Is non-citizenship a ground analogous to those enumerated in s.15? (3) Does the citizenship requirement violate s.15?

Yes to all. The citizenship requirement violated s.15 and could not be saved under s.1.

Section 15 prohibits substantive, not merely formal, inequality. A distinction is discriminatory if it imposes burdens or denies benefits in a way that reflects stereotyped characteristics or perpetuates the disadvantage of vulnerable groups. Analogous grounds are recognised by reference to immutability, historical disadvantage, and political powerlessness.

McIntyre J rejected the "similarly situated" test as inadequate to capture systemic disadvantage. Equality must be assessed by looking at the impact of the law on the affected group. Citizenship is an analogous ground because non-citizens are a discrete and insular minority lacking political power. The citizenship requirement bore no rational connection to legal competence and could not be saved under s.1.

Foundational s.15 case. Establishes substantive equality as the constitutional standard. The "analogous grounds" framework has since recognised sexual orientation (Egan), marital status (Miron), and Aboriginal identity living off reserve (Corbiere).

Andrews v Law Society of British Columbia, [1989] 1 SCR 143, 1989 CanLII 2 (SCC).

Dickson CJ, McIntyre J, Lamer J, Wilson J, La Forest J, L'Heureux-Dubé J, Beetz J