When weighing the deleterious effects of the impugned provisions in the workplace insurance system against their salutary benefits, what are the implications?

When weighing the deleterious effects of the impugned provisions against their salutary benefits, we find that there is an imbalance between the substantial harmful effects on the claimant group and the speculative net benefit created by the impugned provisions for the workplace insurance system. In reaching this conclusion, we have considered the reasons of McLachlin C.J. in Quebec v. A, supra, in which the Chief Justice concluded that the impugned law was justified under section 1. In finding that the deleterious effects of the impugned law did not outweigh the salutary benefits, McLachlin C.J. observed that the discriminatory effects of the impugned law in that case were attenuated in the modern era, noting that there was no longer any stigma of de facto relationships (para. 449). In contrast, in this case, there is evidence that persons with mental illness continue to be stigmatized and subject to discrimination and stereotyping. This reinforces our conclusion that the deleterious effects of the impugned provisions are significant and outweigh their potential salutary effects.