Commission de l’assurance-emploi du Canada c RL

Commission de l’assurance-emploi du Canada c RL

The Appeal Division held that s.153.17 did not create or contribute to discrimination contrary to s.15(1) once read in the context of the Employment Insurance Act and the suite of pandemic measures; the General Division erred in fact and law by failing to distinguish disadvantages caused by the pandemic and by not...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2026 TSS 76
Parties
Appellant: Commission de l’assurance‑emploi du Canada; Respondent: R. L.
Court
Social Security Tribunal of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
4 February 2026
Procedural Posture
Employment Insurance Appeal / Appeal Division Decision
Outcome
Appeal allowed; article 153.17 upheld; respondent denied the contested hours credit and found ineligible for maternity and parental benefits under that provision
Legal Topics
Section 15 Charter Equality, Gender Discrimination, Covid‑19 Temporary Measures, Statutory Interpretation
Source Language
french
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Employment Insurance Law Section 15 Charter Equality Gender Discrimination Covid‑19 Temporary Measures Statutory Interpretation

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Commission de l’assurance‑emploi du Canada

Appellant

R. L.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Insurance Appeal / Appeal Division Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether s.153.17 of the Employment Insurance Act creates a distinction on the basis of sex under s.15(1) of the Charter
  2. 2 Whether the design and one‑time application of the pandemic hours credit exacerbated or perpetuated disadvantage to women
  3. 3 Whether the General Division erred in law and fact in applying the two‑part s.15 test and in failing to consider statutory context and resource allocation

Ratio Decidendi

The Appeal Division held that s.153.17 did not create or contribute to discrimination contrary to s.15(1) once read in the context of the Employment Insurance Act and the suite of pandemic measures; the General Division erred in fact and law by failing to distinguish disadvantages caused by the pandemic and by not properly assessing the legislative context and resource allocation, therefore s.153.17 is constitutional and the respondent cannot use the one‑time credit for a second claim.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; article 153.17 upheld; respondent denied the contested hours credit and found ineligible for maternity and parental benefits under that provision

Orders

  • Appeal allowed.
  • Decision of the General Division is set aside to the extent it declared s.153.17 unconstitutional.