. ▁The ▁dispute ▁cul min ated ▁in ▁this ▁case ▁where ▁the ▁test ▁was ▁reform ulated ▁to ▁reflect ▁both ▁sides ▁of ▁the ▁dispute . ▁ ▁Re asons ▁of ▁the ▁court ▁The ▁un anim ous ▁court , ▁in ▁a ▁jud g ement ▁written ▁by ▁I ac ob ucci ▁J , ▁held ▁that ▁the ▁Canada ▁P ension ▁Plan ▁did ▁not ▁viol ate ▁section ▁ 1 5 ( 1 ). ▁ ▁I ac ob ucci ▁exam ines ▁the ▁past ▁cases ▁on ▁section ▁ 1 5 , ▁not ing ▁the ▁on going ▁dispute ▁between ▁the ▁just ices . ▁However , ▁there ▁remains ▁a ▁cons ensus ▁on ▁the ▁purpose ▁and ▁approach , ▁which ▁he ▁enumer ates . ▁ ▁First , ▁the ▁approach ▁must ▁not ▁be ▁mechanical , ▁rather ▁it ▁should ▁be ▁flexible , ▁pur pos ive ▁and ▁context ual . ▁The ▁steps ▁in ▁the ▁test ▁must ▁function ▁as ▁a ▁point ▁of ▁reference , ▁not ▁strict ▁gu idel ines , ▁and ▁must ▁allow ▁for ▁expansion ▁and ▁modification ▁by ▁cases ▁in ▁the ▁future . ▁The ▁analysis ▁must ▁be ▁rem edy ▁orient ed ▁in ▁order ▁to ▁properly ▁identify ▁and ▁solve ▁situation ▁of ▁disc rim ination . ▁ ▁Second , ▁the ▁analysis ▁generally ▁should ▁focus ▁on ▁three ▁issues . ▁whether ▁a ▁law ▁impos es ▁differential ▁treatment ▁between ▁the ▁claim ant ▁and ▁others , ▁in ▁purpose ▁or ▁effect ; ▁whether ▁one ▁or ▁more ▁enumer ated ▁or ▁analog ous ▁grounds ▁of ▁disc rim ination ▁are ▁the ▁basis ▁for ▁the ▁differential ▁treatment ; ▁and ▁whether ▁the ▁law ▁in ▁question ▁has ▁a ▁purpose ▁or ▁effect ▁that ▁is