Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Canada decisions
Decisions matching the current search
The Supreme Court of Canada held that Quebec’s daycare subsidy exclusion for refugee claimants infringed s. 15(1) and was not justified under s. 1.
Applying the modern purposive approach and Vavilov's reasonableness standard, the Court found the Board erred in its reasoning by equating the undefined term 'accommodation' with the separately defined term 'home' and by importing the Policy Manual as if it were binding; however, on proper contextual and purposive analysis of the ESIA and its Regulations the concept of 'accommodation' in ss.48–50 requires stable, secure and reasonably permanent living arrangements and a tent does not meet that standard, so a tent is not an 'accommodation' for the purposes of s.49 and enhanced benefits do not…
Source excerpt
The Court held the Department’s application of the former s.8 regime and associated MSI policy created a barrier requiring an in-province specialist referral that, in the applicants’ circumstances (rare disabling conditions with no relevant Nova Scotia specialists), imposed a distinction that violated s.15(1) of the Charter; the violation was not justified under s.1, the decision-making process was procedurally unfair and the outcomes unreasonable under Vavilov; the Departmental decisions dated June 23, 2022 are quashed and the Court retains jurisdiction to determine appropriate remedies and…
Source excerpt
The Appeal Division allowed the Commission’s appeal because the General Division committed an error of law by failing to consider the legislative context and purposes of the EI scheme in its section 15 analysis; when context is considered the 50-week limit does not operate to reinforce or perpetuate disadvantage and the challenged provisions are constitutional, so the Claimants are not entitled to further EI regular benefits.
Source excerpt
The claimant did not prove she accumulated the required 420 insurable hours within the qualifying period (Dec 6, 2020–Dec 4, 2021); the statutory 300-hour pandemic credit was already applied to an earlier claim and cannot be applied to this claim; therefore she does not qualify for EI sickness benefits and the appeal is dismissed.
Source excerpt
Appeal allowed: General Division breached natural justice by relying on specialized, non‑record intersectionality materials without giving the Minister a chance to respond; on the merits, s.63(6) of the CPP does not infringe s.15(1) because it is facially neutral, applies equally to all survivors, the claimant failed to prove a distinction on an enumerated or analogous ground or an adverse effect perpetuating prejudice, and the provision is consistent with the CPP's insurance and sustainability objectives.
Source excerpt
The Appellant failed at the first step of the s.15 analysis because she did not demonstrate that the hours-and-qualifying-period rules create a distinction based on sex or pregnancy; her lack of hours was attributable to job loss and her personal decision not to seek work during pregnancy without medical evidence linking pregnancy to inability to work, therefore the provisions are not discriminatory under s.15.
Source excerpt
Federal Court held that Abegweit First Nation on-reserve residency rules for voting and Council candidacy infringed Charter equality rights; the Chief residency rule was upheld.
Claimant was a former common-law partner at the contributor's death and the CPP eligibility distinction is based on legal marital status at death not on an enumerated or analogous ground; therefore there is no s.15(1) discrimination, and the denial of the pension is an economic decision that does not infringe s.7; appeal dismissed.
Source excerpt
The Tribunal validly exercised its retained jurisdiction to adopt the parties' Proposed Amendments because they refine and clarify the May 26, 2017 orders, limit administrative delays, permit only clinically necessary case conferencing, set enforceable timelines for decisions, and preserve the remedial objectives of ensuring substantive equality and a child‑first application of Jordan's Principle.
Source excerpt
Explore more
