no subject

It is unnecessary to pinpoint a particular group that precisely corresponds to the claimant group except for the personal characteristic or characteristics alleged to ground the discrimination. Provided that the claimant establishes a distinction based on one or more enumerated or analogous grounds, the claim should proceed to the second step of the analysis. This provides the flexibility required to accommodate claims based on intersecting grounds of discrimination. It also avoids the problem of eliminating claims at the outset because no precisely corresponding group can be posited.

- Withler v. Canada (Attorney General), 2011 SCC 12

Oh, Withler. I have been waiting months and months and months for you and with one hand you grant my fondest wishes by finally getting rid of the goddamn mirror comparator thing and then with the other, you continue to pretend that Auton wasn't a travesty (and that Hodge wasn't a travesty and that Gosselin wasn't a travesty and that Law wasn't a travesty ad infinitum.)

Also I still don't even know what Kapp means so good job clearing that up. I guess we'll be waiting for the next decision then? Sure!