Law v Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1999] 1 SCR 497 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The ruling is notable because the court created the Law test, a significant new tool that has since been used by Canadian courts for determining the validity of equality rights claims under section 15. However, the Law test has since been discredited by the Supreme Court. Background 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. Otherwise, the survivor claimant is not entitled to benefits until he or she reaches age 65. She appealed to the Pension Plan Review Tribunal on the basis the age requirement was in violation of her equality rights under section 15(1) of the Charter (which specifically names age as a grounds on which one has rights against discrimination). The tribunal held that the legislation did not violate Law's rights. The majority held that even if it did it would be justified under section 1 of the Charter. However, the dissenting opinion found that the age distinction was arbitrary and Parliament could have targeted those in need better. The Federal Court of Appeal upheld the tribunal's decision. The question before the Supreme Court was "whether ss. 44(1)(d) and 58 of the Canada Pension Plan infringe s. 15(1) of the Charter on the ground that they discriminate on the basis of age against widows and widowers under the age of 35, and if so, whether this infringement is demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society under s. 1". Prior to Law, there had been a sharp divide in the Court in the interpretation of the section 15 test established in Andrews v Law Society of British Columbia. The dispute culminated in this case where the test was reformulated to reflect both sides of the dispute. Reasons of the court The unanimous court, in a judgement written by Iacobucci J, held that the Canada Pension Plan did not violate section 15(1). Iacobucci examines the past cases on section 15, noting the ongoing dispute between the justices. However, there remains a consensus on the purpose and approach, which he enumerates. First, the approach must not be mechanical, rather it should