Summary of Issue: Charter

Decision 75583 Full Text of Decision 75583

The claimant, a grandmother caring for her granddaughter, filed an initial claim for benefits and was refused regular benefits. She therefore applied for parental benefits since she had started the process to obtain permanent legal custody of her granddaughter. The Board having read the docket and listened to the claimant's representation allowed Parental Employment Insurance benefits. The Commission submits that the claimant was not entitled to parental benefits pursuant to s. 23 EIA because her grandchild was not placed in her care for the purpose of adoption. The appeal by the commission is allowed by the Umpire.

Decision A-0302.99 Full Text of Decision A-0302.99

On Sept. 1990, claimant gave birth but, because Bill C-21 came into effect on Nov. 18, 1990, she was not entitled to parental benefits. She alleged that the transitional rules were unconstitutional as applied to her because they violate the right to equality guaranteed by S.15 of the Charter. Application dismissed by the FCA. In the context of complex statutory schemes where the total cost of the programme is a relevant consideration in its design, Parliament should be given a degree of latitude in determining where to draw the line between benefit claims falling under the old and under the new rules, an exercise that is almost bound to seem arbitrary to those falling on the wrong side of the line.

Decision 38323 Full Text of Decision 38323

A liberal construction of section 20 of the Act is that it speaks not only to those claimants who have already commenced adoption proceedings and have physical custody of the child, but also those claimants who have legal and actual custody of the children and intend to adopt those children and can prove that intent whether or not the adoption actually takes place

Decision T-0744.95 Full Text of Decision T-0744.95

The Court decided that ss. 11(7) is discriminatory because it makes an unlawful distinction based on family situation in the provision of services, contrary to the CHRA, by excluding from receiving extended benefits the parents of children who, because of their health, need extended care, solely because they come home before the age of six months. Therefore, unless Parliament acts within the specified time limit, the Commission will have to stop applying par. 11(7)(a) as a prerequisite for the 15 weeks of extended benefits.

Decision 23643A Full Text of Decision 23643A

The allegation that para._11(7)(a) is unconstitutional by reason of s.15 of the Charter and discriminates on the basis of age is dismissed. Also, distinctions made are based on categories of children who are not claimants, not on the age of claimants.

Decision 24763 Full Text of Decision 24763

Claimant disputes the fact of receiving only 10 weeks of benefits for an adopted child as compared to 15 for a natural child. This is a matter for Parliament which has already considered and dealt with part of the issue in the 18-11-90 amendments. Only Parliament can extend parental benefits to 15 weeks.

Decision 21499 Full Text of Decision 21499

Newborn aged 3 months at homecoming; the insured argues para. 11(7) discriminates against handicapped children; argument dismissed: clause 15 of the Charter does not concern the rights of handicapped children but the right to benefits.

Decision A0346.05 Full Text of Decision A0346.05

The issue is whether the EI Act discriminates under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms against adoptive mothers by providing up to 50 weeks of benefits to biological mothers as opposed to up to 35 weeks of benefits to adoptive mothers. In a lengthy and comprehensive decision, the FCA concluded that the EI Act does not discriminate against adoptive mothers. The Court relied heavily on the Schafer decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal (1997) and a decision of the BC Court of Appeal involving the BC Government and Services Employees' Union (2002). The Supreme Court denied the claimant leave to appeal on January 24, 2008

Decision 63755 Full Text of Decision 63755

The claimant argued that the "maternity" provisions of the EI Act are discriminatory against adoptive mothers. The Umpire held that there had not been discriminatory treatment having regard to the purpose of s. 15(1) of the Charter. The Umpire's decision was upheld by the Federal Court of Appeal, A-346-05, issued March 27, 2007