▁being ▁or ▁member ▁of ▁Canadian ▁society , ▁and ▁less ▁difficult ▁to ▁do ▁so ▁where ▁the ▁law ▁fails ▁to ▁take ▁into ▁account ▁the ▁claim ant ' s ▁actual ▁situation . ▁The ▁am el ior ative ▁purpose ▁or ▁effects ▁of ▁the ▁imp ug ned ▁law ▁upon ▁a ▁more ▁dis adv ant aged ▁person ▁or ▁group ▁in ▁society . ▁An ▁am el ior ative ▁purpose ▁or ▁effect ▁which ▁acc ords ▁with ▁the ▁purpose ▁of ▁s . ▁ 1 5 ( 1 ) ▁of ▁the ▁Char ter ▁will ▁likely ▁not ▁viol ate ▁the ▁human ▁dign ity ▁of ▁more ▁adv ant aged ▁individuals ▁where ▁the ▁ex clusion ▁of ▁these ▁more ▁adv ant aged ▁individuals ▁largely ▁corresponds ▁to ▁the ▁greater ▁need ▁or ▁the ▁different ▁circumstances ▁experienced ▁by ▁the ▁dis adv ant aged ▁group ▁being ▁target ed ▁by ▁the ▁legisl ation . ▁This ▁factor ▁is ▁more ▁relevant ▁where ▁the ▁s . ▁ 1 5 ( 1 ) ▁claim ▁is ▁brought ▁by ▁a ▁more ▁adv ant aged ▁member ▁of ▁society . ▁The ▁nature ▁and ▁scope ▁of ▁the ▁interest ▁affected ▁by ▁the ▁imp ug ned ▁law . ▁The ▁more ▁severe ▁and ▁local ized ▁the ▁consequences ▁of ▁the ▁legisl ation ▁for ▁the ▁affected ▁group , ▁the ▁more ▁likely ▁that ▁the ▁differential ▁treatment ▁responsible ▁for ▁these ▁consequences ▁is ▁disc rimin atory ▁within ▁the ▁meaning ▁of ▁s . ▁ 1 5 ( 1 ). ▁ ▁Comment ary ▁This ▁case ▁in ▁some ▁respect s ▁contrad icted ▁the ▁earlier ▁section ▁ 1 5 ▁case ▁Andrew s ▁v ▁Law ▁Society ▁of ▁British ▁Columbia , ▁in ▁which ▁it ▁was