## Facts

- Nancy Law was 30 years old when her husband, a Canada Pension Plan (CPP) contributor, died.
- The CPP pays a survivor’s pension to a surviving spouse if statutory eligibility criteria are met.
- For surviving spouses who are able-bodied and have no dependent children, eligibility depended on age at the contributor’s death:
  - Age 45 or older: full survivor’s pension.
  - Ages 35–45: reduced survivor’s pension.
  - Under age 35: no immediate survivor’s pension; eligibility deferred until age 65.
- Law was under 35, not disabled, and had no dependent children; she was denied immediate survivor’s pension benefits.
- She challenged the CPP provisions as age discrimination contrary to s. 15(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

## Issues

1. Whether CPP provisions denying immediate survivor’s pension benefits to able-bodied surviving spouses under 35 without dependent children infringe s. 15(1) by discriminating on the basis of age.
2. If s. 15(1) is infringed, whether the infringement is justified under s. 1 of the Charter.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Canada, in a unanimous judgment, dismissed the appeal.
- The Court held the CPP provisions created differential treatment based on age, an enumerated ground.
- The Court nonetheless concluded the distinction was not discriminatory in the substantive sense and did not violate s. 15(1).
- Because no s. 15(1) breach was found, the Court did not conduct a full s. 1 analysis.

## Legal Principles

- A s. 15(1) claim requires proof of:
  - differential treatment (including by formal distinction or failure to account for an already disadvantaged position);
  - a distinction based on an enumerated or analogous ground; and
  - discrimination in a substantive sense, assessed by whether the law’s purpose or effect demeans the claimant’s human dignity.
- Discrimination analysis under s. 15(1) is contextual and cannot be reduced to a strictly mechanical formula.
- Contextual considerations relevant to whether differential treatment is discriminatory include:
  - pre-existing disadvantage, vulnerability, or stereotyping of the affected group;
  - the fit between the ground of distinction and the claimant’s actual circumstances, needs, and capacities;
  - the ameliorative purpose or effect of the scheme, including targeting of limited resources to groups more likely to need assistance; and
  - the nature and severity of the interest affected.
- A distinction based on generalized assessments of need and employability may be constitutionally permissible where it does not rest on negative stereotyping or perpetuate disadvantage.

## Conclusion

The Court upheld the CPP survivor-benefit age thresholds, holding that although the scheme drew an age-based distinction, it did not impose a discriminatory denial of benefits within the meaning of Charter s. 15(1), so no s. 1 justification was required.


Law v. Canada (Minister of Emp. & Immigr.), [1999] 1 S.C.R. 497 (Can. 1999)