I acknowledge that the decision in Trociuk v. British
Columbia (Attorney General),  1 S.C.R. 835,  S.C.J.
No. 32, 2003 SCC 34, at para. 20, indicates that the absence of historical disadvantage does not exclude a finding of discrimination.
However, I do not find any evidence in the record before the court
that supports the applicants’ allegations of the prejudice that they
say results from the Policies. Moreover, a closer analysis of the
three other factors, in addition to historical disadvantage, identified by Iacobucci J. in Law v. Canada (Minister of Employment and
Immigration),  1 S.C.R. 497,  S.C.J. No. 12 and
referred to by McLachlin C.J.C. in her concurring decision in
Quebec (Attorney General) v. A, support this conclusion for the following reasons.
 First, insofar as the distinction is expressed to be on the
basis of religious grounds, the Policies represent an attempt to
take into account the actual circumstances of religious physicians.
An important feature of the effective referral requirements of the
Policies is that they represent an effort to balance the rights of
patients to access to health care, in particular the right to equitable access to care, with the rights of physicians whose religious
convictions treat the provision of certain medical services as
immoral or sinful and who are therefore not prepared to provide
such services directly. The fact that this accommodation does not
go far enough for the applicants does not detract from this reality.
The evidence establishes that these arrangements do respond to
the concerns of many other physicians who raise religious or conscientious objections to the provision of such services.
 Second, for the reasons set out above and addressed further below in the proportionality analysis, the Policies have “an
ameliorative purpose or effect for certain members of society”, in
particular, for patients who are members of vulnerable or disadvantaged groups in our society. The distinction drawn in the Policies is directed toward ensuring patient access to health care
services and, in particular, to alleviating the possibility of inequitable access to health care services.
 Lastly, as discussed further in the proportionality analysis,
the distinction in the Policies does not restrict access to a fundamental social institution or impede full membership in Canadian
society. The burdens imposed on objecting physicians, for whom
the options for compliance with the effective referral requirements of the Policies are not satisfactory, pertain ultimately to
the nature of their practice of medicine. It is important in this
context to note that there is no constitutionally protected right to
practice medicine as discussed further below.