This case in some respects contradicted the earlier section 15 case "Andrews v Law Society of British Columbia", in which it was ruled that differential, detrimental treatment directly affecting an enumerated or analogous ground constituted a violation of section 15, and that any discussion about the law's purpose or reasonableness should then take place in the section 1 analysis. As constitutional legal scholar Peter Hogg has written, by examining whether the challenged law undermines dignity while still looking at section 15, and not yet section 1, "Law" moved much of the analysis of the law's purpose and reasonableness from the traditional section 1 test, and into section 15. This means that a person who claims his section 15 rights are violated must himself prove his dignity was undermined.