Every individual in society is guaranteed a certain amount of protection and equality by the state, regardless of their situation or background. Depending on how the terms discrimination and equality are interpreted in the courts, these rights will apply. In the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, section 15 is made up of two subsections which will be examined in terms of discrimination within society. As stated in section 15 (1) “Everyone is equal before and under the law and is entitled to equal protection of the law without discrimination...”1 The term discrimination here refers to all forms of discrimination such as race, ethnicity, or any form of disability. However, discrimination can also be applied in a general sense to classes or social conditions. If a person were to be at an economic disadvantage, they would be treated differently from others, thus making it a form of discrimination.2 An example of a case known to have examined section 15 is Andrews v. Law Society of British Columbia dealing with section 15 and prima facie violations.3 Mr. Andrews was a permanent resident of Canada, but did not have citizenship. He was not accepted into the Provincial Bar of British Columbia because he did not have citizenship. He took the case to court on the basis that it violated his rights, Article 15 of the Charter. The case went to the Supreme Court of British Columbia where he appealed to see whether there was a prima facie breach of equality and the appeal was dismissed3If the courts were to use the Andrews case as a precedent to exclude economic disadvantage from section 15, and If the two phases of the previous case were used, it would pass.7 If the comparative test of definitions were applied, ... half of the document ... it is understood that social conditions could be seen as an analogous terrain, but do not refer to it as such. Courts tend to refrain from including economic status as a form of analogous ground and from recognizing it as a violation of section 15. Their reasoning is that their task with respect to section 15 is to make decisions for specific cases, not a practical guidance for issues of economic equality.6First When the Andrews case came up, the courts were dealing with the issue of a huge number of trivial cases involving section 15. This was later resolved by using a more rigorous definitional balancing test and the ad hoc balancing.7 The balancing test of definition became more stringent after the Andrew case and narrowed the definition of discrimination in relation to disadvantages and harms. In terms of ad hoc balancing, it is based on whether the discrimination is justifiable or not.