The Federal Court of Appeal has ruled in favor of a collective of six mothers from Quebec who have been engaged in a legal dispute to invalidate certain sections of the Employment Insurance Act.
These women contested the denial of regular EI benefits due to losing their jobs during or shortly after their maternity leave.
The three-judge panel unanimously determined that specific provisions of the Employment Insurance Act were discriminatory, thereby violating the women’s constitutional right to equality as stipulated by law.
The appellate court found that withholding regular EI job loss benefits from women who recently availed maternity and parental benefits infringes upon section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
This section of the Charter ensures equality under the law and equal protection and benefit of the law without discrimination based on sex, among other criteria.
All six mothers in the collective had given birth, received maternity and parental benefits, and lost their jobs before, during, or shortly after their leave periods.
However, they were denied EI job loss benefits, which they would typically qualify for had they not been on maternity and parental leave.
Some women were denied these benefits due to insufficient insurable work hours during the reference period, while others had exhausted the maximum 50 weeks of total benefits.
The court concluded that the EI Act’s restrictions on combining maternity and parental benefits with job loss benefits, despite applying to both genders, have a disproportionate impact on women.
In its decision summary, the court noted that this disparity arises because only women can become pregnant and give birth, thus only they qualify for maternity benefits.
Moreover, the majority of individuals receiving parental benefits are women, and most who combine parental and maternity benefits are also women.
The judges deemed the discriminatory elements of the EI Act to be “of no force or effect,” implying they have been nullified, though the declaration has been suspended for one year.
This suspension grants the federal government a 12-month period to revise the law and enhance its fairness.
The ruling indicated that the provisions which were annulled tended to perpetuate the “long-standing economic disadvantages” associated with pregnancy and motherhood by providing insufficient unemployment safeguards.
An eight-year struggle that isn’t concluded yet
In a press release, Mouvement Action Chômage (MAC) de Montréal, an advocacy organization focused on defending unemployed individuals’ rights, celebrated the appellate court’s ruling.
The organization has supported the mothers since 2018, assisting them in their fight at the Social Security Tribunal of Canada.
Their first victory came in 2022 when the tribunal’s general division ruled in favor of the mothers.
Court records reveal that the women provided evidence to the general division demonstrating how the lack of eligibility for regular EI benefits placed them in a situation of financial dependence and economic instability.
However, the Canada Employment Insurance Commission (CEIC) appealed the ruling and subsequently succeeded, which led the group to escalate the case to the Federal Court of Appeal, where it was heard last November.
Sibel Ataogul, the principal attorney for the plaintiffs, expressed that the judges’ ruling is a triumph, asserting that both MAC de Montréal and the six mothers have considerable reason to take pride in their efforts.
“I’m sure they are incredibly excited about what they have accomplished for all women across Canada,” she remarked.
Ataogul added that they achieved the outcome they anticipated, and the ruling was somewhat expected.
The attorney noted that this case follows the Kayinda decision from the Supreme Court of Canada, which addressed discrimination against women and refugee asylum seekers lacking access to daycare services.
That ruling underscored that governments must uphold the right to equality when implementing social programs, according to Ataogul.
Nevertheless, the legal battle may not be concluded. The federal government has a 60-day window to indicate whether it intends to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.
In a statement, MAC de Montréal indicated that an appeal of the decision “would be a slap in the face” not only for the six women involved but also for the hundreds—if not thousands—of others across Canada in similar situations awaiting a resolution.
In an email response to CBC News, the office of Minister of Jobs and Families Patty Hajdu stated that the federal government would thoroughly examine the ruling “to determine the next steps.”