From a Canadian legal perspective, the notion that a test could be discriminatory and so unconstitutional is not note-worthy in itself. It all follows standard case law there. The legally interesting bit, is the card seemingly dropped in the shuffling, where the court recommends a less intrusive alternative policy that was also considered by the government:
> There is a plethora of evidence in the record highlighting the disproportionate impacts of standardized testing based on race … In contrast, there is no evidence to suggest that these negative diversity impacts would exist in the context of a mandatory math course …
Of course, no evidence exists because no one has looked for it yet. This reliance on single-example small studies to suggest possible less intrusive remedies is probably a path to much legal madness. This will likely be appealed. Politically this is a bit heated as both Quebec and Ontario's governments have recently rubbed up against the limits of the Charter in different areas.