In 1983, Andrews relocated to Vancouver with his Canadian spouse, both pursuing articling positions and completing the bar admission courses.

[3] He argued that this requirement resulted in the denial of equal treatment under the law for non-Canadian candidates, thereby discriminating against them based on their national origin.

[c 2] In his decision, Justice Martin Rapson Taylor of the Supreme Court of British Columbia ruled that the citizenship requirement did not infringe upon the equality rights safeguarded by Sections 15 and 7 of the Charter.

[c 3] Justice Taylor ruled that the statute did not discriminate because it did not draw an "irrational or irrelevant distinction, or otherwise impose a disadvantage.

[c 9] McLachlin concluded that there was no compelling justification for the citizenship requirement in order to practice law, rendering it unreasonable, unfair, and a violation of equality rights under Section 15 of the Charter.

[4] Gorel Elizabeth Kinersly, an American citizen and permanent resident of Canada articling in British Columbia was added as a co-respondent in the appeal.

[4] For the appellant, the Attorney Generals for the provinces of Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia, Saskatchewan, and Alberta were granted intervener status, as well as the Federation of Law Societies of Canada.

[c 8] The test set out by McIntyre J and adopted by the majority held that claims under Section 15 would be assessed based on: The court first defined a general approach to the equality guarantee.

[3] In dissent, McIntyre and Lamer JJ disagreed on the point of the Section 1 analysis, believing it would be upheld on the basis of "reasonable limit" and preferred to be deferential to the House of Commons.

[3] In the 1999 case Law v Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), the Supreme Court tightened the Andrews test, limiting burdensome differences in treatment to those that a reasonable person would say violated the claimant's dignity as a human being.

This position was reversed by the Supreme Court in the 2008 case R v Kapp, back to the original test, but re-adjusted in Quebec (AG) v A in 2013 and again by Kahkewistahaw First Nation v Taypotat in 2015.