| | Egan v. Canada ( C.A. ) (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-21) |
 | | The first one, which can be called the "abstract test", presumes discrimination once it has been found that a distinction is based on a prohibited ground, without regard to the purposes and objects of the impugned legislation, nor the fact that others may also have been denied the benefit. |
 | | The second approach, which can be labelled the "concrete test" and is mandated by Andrews, is a contextual one and requires a full analysis of the immediate impact of the legislation on members of the disadvantaged group, as well as others who are excluded, as measured against the purposes and objects of the legislation. |
 | | The "test as stated" was the Aristotelian principle of formal equality"that "things that are alike should be treated alike, while things that are unalike should be treated unalike in proportion to their unlikeness". |
| reports.fja.gc.ca /fc/1993/pub/v3/1993fca0355.html (17190 words) |