The claimants, who were members of a Métis settlement in Alberta, registered as status Indians under the Indian Act to get medical benefits. As a result, their membership in the Métis settlement was revoked, as the Alberta Métis Settlements Act does not permit status Indians to be members of a Métis settlement. The claimants argued that this denial of membership is unconstitutional because it violates the Charter of Rights and Freedoms' guarantees of equality (s. 15(1)), freedom of association (s. 2(d)), and liberty (s. 7). The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the challenged statutory provision and dismissed the claim. The Métis Settlements Act, including the challenged provision, is ameliorative legislation intended to benefit the Métis people of Alberta by preserving and enhancing their identity, culture, and self government through the establishment of a land base for them. It qualifies under section 15(2) of the Charter as a law "that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups" and so does not offend the equality rights guarantee in section 15(1). Nor is section 7 violated, as it had not been shown that any impact on the claimants' liberty was contrary to fundamental justice, as is required by that section. The section 2(d) argument was not dealt with because the Court found there was not an adequate basis in the record to assess that claim.