What is the test for determining whether a de facto adoptee is protected as a newly purported analogous ground?

In Law v. Canada (supra) there is a certain degree of confluence or overlap of parts two and three of the test. Iacobucci J suggests a review of the purposive and contextual approaches when determining both whether a newly purported analogous ground should be recognized, and whether the impugned law has the purpose or effect of actually discriminating in the substantive sense contemplated by s. 15.(1). I found that the purposive approach was sufficient to find that de facto adoptees should not be protected as a newly purported analogous ground, so did not need to proceed to the contextual approach. I will, however, consider the contextual approach under this heading.