▁her ▁equality ▁rights ▁under ▁section ▁ 1 5 ( 1 ) ▁of ▁the ▁Char ter ▁( which ▁specifically ▁names ▁age ▁as ▁a ▁grounds ▁on ▁which ▁one ▁has ▁rights ▁against ▁disc rim ination ). ▁The ▁trib unal ▁held ▁that ▁the ▁legisl ation ▁did ▁not ▁viol ate ▁Law ' s ▁rights . ▁The ▁majority ▁held ▁that ▁even ▁if ▁it ▁did ▁it ▁would ▁be ▁just ified ▁under ▁section ▁ 1 ▁of ▁the ▁Char ter . ▁However , ▁the ▁diss ent ing ▁opinion ▁found ▁that ▁the ▁age ▁distinction ▁was ▁arbitrary ▁and ▁Parliament ▁could ▁have ▁target ed ▁those ▁in ▁need ▁better . ▁The ▁Federal ▁Court ▁of ▁App e al ▁u ph eld ▁the ▁trib unal ' s ▁decision . ▁ ▁The ▁question ▁before ▁the ▁Supreme ▁Court ▁was ▁" wh ether ▁ss . ▁ 4 4 ( 1 )( d ) ▁and ▁ 5 8 ▁of ▁the ▁Canada ▁P ension ▁Plan ▁in fr inge ▁s . ▁ 1 5 ( 1 ) ▁of ▁the ▁Char ter ▁on ▁the ▁ground ▁that ▁they ▁disc rim inate ▁on ▁the ▁basis ▁of ▁age ▁against ▁wid ows ▁and ▁wid ow ers ▁under ▁the ▁age ▁of ▁ 3 5 , ▁and ▁if ▁so , ▁whether ▁this ▁in fr ing ement ▁is ▁demon stra b ly ▁just ified ▁in ▁a ▁free ▁and ▁dem ocr atic ▁society ▁under ▁s . ▁ 1 ". ▁ ▁Prior ▁to ▁Law , ▁there ▁had ▁been ▁a ▁sharp ▁divide ▁in ▁the ▁Court ▁in ▁the ▁interpretation ▁of ▁the ▁section ▁ 1 5 ▁test ▁established ▁in ▁Andrew s ▁v ▁Law ▁Society ▁of ▁British ▁Columbia