On February 2, 1989 in Andrews v. Law Society of British Columbia, the Supreme Court of Canada (S.C.C.) ruled on whether the requirement of Canadian citizenship for a specific job in Canada infringed or denied the equality rights guaranteed by section 15(1) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Charter); and if it did, whether it was a reasonable limit on that right justified by section 1.[1] Andrews had achieved all of the qualifications to practice law, but was a citizen of the United Kingdom. The law required that he be a Canadian citizen to completely qualify as a lawyer. He was denied entry to the legal profession on that basis. Andrews argued that he was not being treated equally as many other jobs in Canada did not have a citizenship requirement. The case is of note in that it established the ground rules for future equality decisions by the courts.
Andrews lost at trial. The judge ruled that being a citizen involved a special commitment to the community at large, requiring a familiarity with the country, and thus citizenship was a personal characteristic relevant to the practice of law.[2] Further the legislation being challenged was rationally based and reasonable under the circumstances and thus did not violate the equality provisions of the Constitution.[3] Hence the equality…show more content… It ruled that the citizenship requirement was unreasonable and unfair and that it did violate the Charter’s equality provisions. “Legislators, judges, civil servants and policemen” all play key roles in performing government functions and could be required to be Canadian, but the practice of law was a private profession that did not require that distinction.[4] Hence the requirement of citizenship was discriminatory. Nor could the citizenship requirement be saved under s. 1. This was not an important enough government objective to override a Charter right.[5] The Law Society of British Columbia