The case involved Nancy Law, a 30-year-old seeking survivor benefits under the Canada Pension Plan (CPP) which are limited only to people over age 35, disabled or with dependants at the time of the deceased's death.

The unanimous court, in a judgement written by Iacobucci J, held that the Canada Pension Plan did not violate section 15(1).

The steps in the test must function as a point of reference, not strict guidelines, and must allow for expansion and modification by cases in the future.

Namely, "that of the reasonable person, in circumstances similar to those of the claimant, who takes into account the contextual factors relevant to the claim".

The decision provoked many criticisms by legal scholars centered around the third stage of the section 15 analysis: the elusive concept of human dignity.

"[4]: 316  Similarly, criticisms have been levelled against the Court on the ground that the human dignity test is muddled and is not sufficiently coherent a concept so as to effectively address concerns of equality claimants.

For example, the Court in Eldridge v British Columbia (AG) wrote that the purpose of section 15(1) was to express "a commitment … to the equal worth and human dignity of all persons".

[7]: 671 Many criticisms levelled against the focus on human dignity point to inconsistencies in the Supreme Court's own definition of the term.

Iacobucci J has variously characterized the term as referring to "personal autonomy and self-determination", "physical and psychological integrity and empowerment", as well as "self-respect and self-worth",[8] indicating a conflation of different understandings of equality.

[4]: 318 Substantially, the human dignity test has been widely criticized on the grounds that it sets a dangerous precedent for section 15 equality claims because its vague nature does not lend itself well to consistent and comprehensible application by the Court in the future, and because it puts forth a conception of equality that is formal rather than substantive.

One scholar writes that "[t]he Courts' muddled and inconsistent application of human dignity suggests that it should be excised from Charter discourse altogether".

[9]: 25 In attempting to address these concerns and on the heels of the controversial Law decision, scholars proposed various alternatives to the human dignity test.

Rather, the Court implied that the concept of human dignity should instead be considered generally as an important factor in deciding s. 15 equality claims[11]: para 22  and that it should remain a central idea.