In this case, the provision in question does not differentiate based on a personal characteristic of the appellant. As the respondent states, income level is not considered to be a personal characteristic. Moreover, with regard to the second factor, an analogous ground of discrimination must be "immutable or constructively immutable": Corbière v. Canada (Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs), 1999 CanLII 687 (SCC), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 203. Courts have affirmed that income level is not an immutable characteristic and thus, not an analogous ground. It follows that the treatment complained of cannot impugn the constitutional validity of s. 56(1)(b).
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.