Is it more evident and easier to establish discrimination if an age category was expressly excluded from a benefit or advantage?

I am not persuaded by this argument. It is true that discrimination would be more evident and easier to establish if an age category were expressly excluded from a benefit or an advantage. But in the great majority of cases, discrimination results rather from a standard that appears to be neutral; to the extent that the application of such a standard leads to a disproportionate exclusion of certain categories of persons (whether it be on grounds of age, sex, or another characteristic listed in sections 7 and 10 of the Act), it can be determined that there is discrimination which is systemic or which follows from its adverse effect: O'Malley v. Simpsons-Sears Ltd., 1985 CanLII 18 (SCC), [1985] 2 S.C.R. 536; Bhinder v. C.N., 1985 CanLII 19 (SCC), [1985] 2 S.C.R. 561.