The appellants renewed their s. 15(1) submissions in their
factum but did not address this issue in oral argument.
Their written submissions were supported by the EFC et al. They
say that the Policies draw a distinction between physicians who are
religious and those who are not, and impose a burden on religious
physicians that will force them to give up the practice of medicine involving direct patient contact rather than sacrifice their
religious beliefs. The Policies force them to do so because of
their religious beliefs and are, therefore, discriminatory in their
 The EFC et al. submit that the Divisional Court erred in
finding that the second branch of the Taypotat test was not met.
They submit that the inquiry under the second branch is whether
the impugned Policies have a discriminatory effect. When looking
at the effects, it must be considered “whether the distinction
restricts access to a fundamental social institution, or affects
‘a basic aspect of full membership in Canadian society’”. They
contend that employment is one such fundamental institution.
 The College submits that the Divisional Court correctly
found that the Policies do not infringe the appellants’ s. 15(1)
equality rights. It says there was no evidence establishing
a differential impact on religious physicians because the Policies
apply to all conscientious objectors — regardless of whether the
source of their objection is religious or secular.
 On the second branch of the test, the College submits that
the appellants have failed to show that any distinctive treatment
that may be imposed by the Policies is discriminatory in nature.
 I would not give effect to the appellants’ submissions,
largely for the reasons given by the Divisional Court at paras.
128-131. As the Divisional Court stated, the Policies represent an
attempt to balance equitable access to health care with physicians’
religious beliefs. The Policies, as clarified by the Fact Sheet, provide an appropriate balance for many physicians. Physicians
who do not regard the procedures set out in the Fact Sheet as
acceptable can transition to other areas of medicine in which
these issues of faith or conscience are less likely to arise, if at all.
 This takes me to the central issues in this appeal: whether
the limits on the appellants’ religious freedom can be justified
under s. 1 of the Charter.
(4) Section 1: The justification analysis
 Section 1 of the Charter provides:
1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and
freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law
as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.