Andrews v Law Society of British Columbia

Content sourced from Wikipedia, licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.

Andrews v Law Society of British Columbia

Supreme Court of Canada
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

What the case was about
Mark Andrews, a British law graduate who had moved to Vancouver, challenged a rule in British Columbia that barred non‑Canadian citizens from being admitted to the bar. The rule came from Section 42 of the Barristers and Solicitors Act, which required Canadian citizenship to be called to the Bar. Andrews argued this citizenship requirement violated Section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which protects equality rights.

What the courts decided
- The Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the citizenship requirement violated Section 15 and could not be saved under Section 1 (the reasonable limits clause).
- The Court introduced the Andrews approach to equality rights. Rather than just saying people must be treated the same, the Court ruled that:
- Equality rights focus on whether laws apply equally in practice.
- Just because two people are different does not automatically mean there is discrimination.
- Discrimination must be based on grounds listed in Section 15 or on grounds analogous to them (such as citizenship).
- If a law creates differential treatment based on an enumerated or analogous ground, the burden shifts to the government to justify the law under Section 1.
- The majority held that citizenship is not strongly linked to a person's ability to practice law, so the rule was unjustified discrimination against non‑citizens.

Key players and opinions
- Chief Justice Brian Dickson and Justices Bertha Wilson and Claire L’Heureux-Dubé joined the majority opinion written by Justice Wilson.
- Justice McIntyre, joined by Justice Lamer, dissented on the Section 1 analysis.
- Justice La Forest wrote a separate opinion.
- Justices Beetz, Estey, and Le Dain did not participate in the decision.
- Gorel Kinersly, an American citizen and permanent resident who was pursuing articles in British Columbia, was added as a co‑respondent to prevent mootness; she later became a Canadian citizen.
- Interveners included groups like the Women’s Legal Education and Action Fund and university/teacher associations; several provincial Attorneys General and the Federation of Law Societies of Canada also participated.

Why it matters
- Andrews is a foundational case for equality rights under Section 15 of the Charter. It rejected the idea that laws should be judged solely by whether they treat “similarly situated” people the same and instead focused on whether the law creates discrimination based on enumerated or analogous grounds.
- The decision opened the door to recognizing citizenship and other non‑explicitly listed traits as potential grounds of discrimination.
- The Andrews approach shaped later equality rights cases, with later developments refining how Section 15 analysis and Section 1 justification work together.