The Court found that in considering equality rights, comparator groups are needed to demonstrate that one has suffered differential treatment.

The case began with one Betty Hodge, who was involved in a common-law marriage with a man named Mr. Bickell since 1972.

The tribunal held that the law was invalid because Ms. Hodge was denied a benefit for not living with Mr. Bickell for the full year up to his death.

He began by noting that since Andrews v. Law Society of British Columbia (1989), comparator groups have been seen as being important to section 15 considerations.

In this case, Binnie wrote that selecting the comparator group was not simply an initial step for section 15, and that each test for determining whether there has been discrimination should be done through comparisons.

Binnie referred to this situation as the "Achilles' heel" in section 15 precedent such as Granovsky v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (2000).

Ms. Hodge had suggested that common law marriage should be seen as lasting beyond separation, if there is still some "economic dependency" between the partners.

However, Binnie responded that Parliament had selected cohabitation and not economics as the indicator for common law marriage.