Court: Supreme Court of Canada
Judgment Date: 2 February 1989
Where Reported: [1989] 1 SCR 143
Legal Issue in Andrews v Law Society of British Columbia
The legal issue in Andrews v Law Society of British Columbia involved the constitutionality of the citizenship requirement for admission to the practice of law in British Columbia.
The central question in Andrews v Law Society of British Columbia was whether the requirement of Canadian citizenship for entry into the legal profession constituted a violation of the equality rights guaranteed under section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Andrews v Law Society of British Columbia raised the fundamental legal issue of whether the citizenship requirement was a reasonable limit that could be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society under section 1 of the Charter.
The legal issue also encompassed the examination of the relevance of citizenship to the practice of law, the governmental interest in ensuring that lawyers are familiar with Canadian institutions, and the impact of the citizenship requirement on individuals seeking admission to the legal profession.
Material Facts in Andrews v Law Society of British Columbia
The case involved a challenge to the citizenship requirement for admission to the practice of law in British Columbia.
The respondent, Andrews, who was not a Canadian citizen, sought admission to the bar but was denied solely on the basis of his non-citizenship status.
The trial judge found that the citizenship requirement discriminated against non-citizens and was not justified under section 1 of the Charter.
The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge’s decision, concluding that the requirement was not rationally connected to the governmental interest in ensuring that lawyers had sufficient knowledge of local affairs and institutions for the competent practice of law.
The case raised significant questions about the relevance of citizenship to the legal profession and the impact of the requirement on individuals seeking entry into the legal profession.
Judgment in Andrews v Law Society of British Columbia
The Court of Appeal, in a unanimous decision, upheld the trial judge’s finding that the citizenship requirement for admission to the practice of law in British Columbia violated section 15 of the Charter.
The Court rejected the arguments put forth by the Law Society, emphasising that the requirement was not rationally connected to the governmental interest in ensuring that lawyers had sufficient knowledge of local affairs and institutions for the competent practice of law.
The Court found that the exclusion of non-citizens was not justified and constituted discrimination under section 15(1) of the Charter.
The Reason for the Decision in Andrews v Law Society of British Columbia
The decision was grounded in the interpretation of the concept of equality under section 15 of the Charter and the application of the principles set forth in R v Oakes to determine the reasonableness of the limit imposed by the citizenship requirement.
The Court emphasised that the citizenship requirement did not ensure familiarity with Canadian institutions and customs, as natural-born Canadians were not required to have resided in Canada for a period of time.
The Court also highlighted that the requirement of citizenship was not carefully tailored to achieve the objective of ensuring familiarity with Canadian institutions and customs.
The decision underscored the importance of ensuring that the legislative means adopted are not unreasonable or unfair.
The Court’s reasoning also emphasised the need for a high standard to ensure that objectives which are trivial or discordant with the principles integral to a free and democratic society do not gain section 1 protection.
Legal Principles in Andrews v Law Society of British Columbia
The case of Andrews v Law Society of British Columbia established the legal principle that the citizenship requirement for admission to the practice of law in British Columbia violated the equality rights guaranteed under section 15 of the Charter.
Andrews v Law Society of British Columbia emphasised the need for a high standard to ensure that objectives which are trivial or discordant with the principles integral to a free and democratic society do not gain section 1 protection.
This principle has significant implications for the interpretation and application of laws and regulations that impose citizenship requirements for entry into professions or occupations, particularly in cases where the relevance of citizenship to the profession or occupation is not carefully tailored to achieve the stated objectives.
The decision also highlighted the importance of ensuring that legislative means adopted are not unreasonable or unfair and that discrimination must be proved on a balance of probabilities.
