## Facts

- British Columbia required Canadian citizenship for admission to the provincial bar under a statutory provision governing barristers and solicitors.
- Mark David Andrews, a British subject and permanent resident of Canada, satisfied all bar admission requirements except citizenship.
- Gorel Elizabeth Kinersly, an American citizen and permanent resident, was articling in British Columbia and was added as a co-respondent.
- Andrews sought a declaration that the citizenship requirement violated s. 15(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
- The trial court dismissed the claim, finding no denial of equality or discrimination.
- The British Columbia Court of Appeal reversed, holding the requirement violated s. 15 and was not justified under s. 1.
- The Law Society of British Columbia and the Attorney General of British Columbia appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada.

## Issues

1. Whether requiring Canadian citizenship as a condition of admission to the British Columbia bar infringes s. 15(1) Charter equality rights.
2. If s. 15(1) is infringed, whether the infringement is justified under s. 1 as a reasonable limit demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Canada held unanimously that the citizenship requirement infringed s. 15(1).
- A majority held the infringement was not justified under s. 1, and the appeal was dismissed.
- The citizenship requirement was declared of no force or effect to the extent it required citizenship for bar admission.
- On s. 1, one set of reasons would have upheld the requirement as justified, but that view did not prevail.

## Legal Principles

- Section 15(1) guarantees equality before and under the law and the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination.
- Equality under s. 15 is substantive, not limited to formal equal treatment or the “similarly situated should be similarly treated” approach.
- “Discrimination” includes a distinction based on personal characteristics that imposes disadvantages or withholds benefits relative to others.
- A prima facie s. 15 breach is established where law (1) creates a distinction, (2) on an enumerated or analogous ground, (3) with a discriminatory effect by imposing a burden or withholding a benefit.
- The s. 15 enumerated grounds are not exhaustive; citizenship can be an analogous ground.
- Excluding qualified permanent residents from access to employment as lawyers solely due to citizenship, without regard to individual merit, constitutes discriminatory denial of a benefit under s. 15.
- Under s. 1 proportionality review, even where objectives related to the administration of justice are important, a blanket citizenship rule that excludes qualified non-citizens may fail minimal impairment and overall proportionality.

## Conclusion

The Court held that conditioning bar admission on Canadian citizenship drew a discriminatory distinction against permanent residents on an analogous ground, violating Charter s. 15(1), and the majority concluded the blanket exclusion was not justified under Charter s. 1.


Andrews v. L. Soc’y of B.C., [1989] 1 S.C.R. 143 (Can.)