ANDREWS V.

LAW SOCIETY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

A Critical Analysis
 In Andrews v. Law Society of British Columbia, the Supreme Court of Canada 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. And if so, whether it is justified under s.1.

Case History
 Andrews had achieved all of the qualifications to practice law, but was a citizen of the United Kingdom.  To completely qualify as a lawyer, the law required that he be a Canadian citizen. He was denied the access to the job on that basis.  Andrews decided to fight against this and argued that he was not being treated equally as many other jobs in Canada did NOT have a citizenship requirement.

Evidence of the Crown



At trail, the judge ruled that being a citizen involved having a special commitment to the community, which requires a familiarity with the country and thus citizenship was relevant to the practice of law. Andrews lost at trail and appealed. The British Columbia Court of Appeal overturned the trail judges decision. It ruled that the citizenship requirement was unreasonable and unfair and that it DID violate the Charters equality provisions. Legislators, judges, civil servants and policemen could be required to be Canadian, but the practice of law was a private profession that did NOT require that distinction. Therefore, the requirement of citizenship was discriminatory and nor could it be saved under s.1. But, it wasnt enough to override a Charter right. The Law Society of British Columbia appealed. The Supreme Court of Canada agreed with the Appeal Court. The government had failed to prove that a citizenship requirement was necessary to the practice of law. The Supreme Court stated that the objective was to ensure that lawyers were familiar with Canadas court and government systems. As a result the legislation was overturned.

 

The Defence
 Being a citizen involved a special

commitment to the community which requires a familiarity of the country and so being a Canadian citizen is a requirement.

Not fair
 No the first judge's ruling was not fair, we

found that it was as if he was saying Andrews is not welcome, that he is not allowed to participate because he was not born in Canada there are lots of people in Canada that use the law and need the law that are not Canadians. Canada is a multicultural society this country was built with the help of immigration.

The Canadian Justice System

 The courts first ruled in favour of Law Society of British Columbia, ruling that they had been justified in not hiring him to be a lawyer due to him not being a citizen of Canada. However, the ruling was overturned by the Supreme Court of Canada, declaring that Andrews rights had been violated under s. 15. The Court then decided to create the Andrews Test to determine if there had been a prima facie violation of equality rights.

Our Interpretations
 We do not believe the requirement that lawyers be citizens provides any guarantee that they will honourably and successfully carry out their public duties. They will carry them out, we believe, because they are talented lawyers and not because they are Canadian citizens.  The court could have handled this case by making Andrews write a test to determine his capability instead of rejecting him because of his citizenship status.

THE END.