Canada top court requires Quebec daycare subsidies to include refugee claimant parents - JURIST - News

## Summary
News Dwong33 , CC0, via Wikimedia Commons The Supreme Court of Canada ruled in an 8-1 majority on Friday that Quebec’s subsidized daycare regulation discriminated against women refugee claimants based on sex. In assessing whether the distinction is justified , the majority concluded that limiting daycare subsidies to people with a sufficient connection with Quebec is a legitimate objective of the regulation. On the other hand, Chief Justice Richard Wagner and Justice Suzanne Côté would have held that the regulation creates a distinction based on refugee claimant status. In March 2024, the Quebec Court of Appeal ordered the provincial government to make daycare subsidies eligible to refugee claimant parents with a work permit residing in Quebec.

## Article Content
News
Dwong33
, CC0, via Wikimedia Commons
The Supreme Court of Canada
ruled
in an 8-1 majority on Friday that Quebec’s subsidized daycare regulation discriminated against women refugee claimants based on sex. The ruling requires Quebec to include refugee claimant parents as a group eligible for daycare subsidies.
At issue is Section 3 of Quebec’s
Reduced Contribution Regulation
, which lists the population groups eligible to obtain daycare subsidies. The court held that excluding women refugee claimants created a distinction based on sex, a subgroup of women. While it denied all refugee claimants access to subsidized healthcare, the majority found that women refugee claimants faced a disproportionate impact because they carry a greater share of childcare responsibility, which negatively impacts their ability to work. The court further found that the denial marginalized women refugee claimants and excluded them socially. This violated
Section 15
of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which guarantees the right to equality.
In assessing whether the distinction is
justified
, the majority concluded that limiting daycare subsidies to people with a sufficient connection with Quebec is a legitimate objective of the regulation. However, they found that the distinction is illogical because refugee claimants, wishing to establish themselves permanently in Canada and residing in Quebec, also had that connection.
When an applicant alleges a law is discriminatory and constitutionally non-compliant, they must establish that the law creates a distinction between one population group and others based on the enumerated grounds or an analogous ground. The court is divided on this issue in this case. Justice Malcolm Rowe agreed that this is a sex discrimination case. However, he cautioned that the majority should limit its intersectional analysis to the assessment of the full harm of the regulation, preventing the risk of recognizing a new analogous ground without undergoing the established framework.
On the other hand, Chief Justice Richard Wagner and Justice Suzanne Côté would have held that the regulation creates a distinction based on refugee claimant status. Chief Justice Wagner would have recognized it as a new analogous ground under Section 15 because individuals have no control over it. Contrarily, Justice Côté refused to recognize refugee claimant status as a new analogous ground because it is temporary in nature and not an immutable characteristic.
Responding to the ruling, Bernard Drainville
criticized
the ruling for neglecting Quebecois citizens who have waited for childcare services for years. He promised to invoke the
notwithstanding clause
to ensure Quebecois’ priority access if elected.
In March 2024, the Quebec Court of Appeal
ordered
the provincial government to make daycare subsidies eligible to refugee claimant parents with a work permit residing in Quebec. At the time, former Minister of Families Suzanne Roy
said
the ruling would add 7,000 children to daycare, requiring an additional 300 million CAD in infrastructure, 120 million CAD per year in daycare subsidy expenses, and 900 educators. With the ruling expanding the eligibility to include all refugee claimant parents living in Quebec, their access to daycare facilities and services is a developing story.

---

## Expert Analysis

### Merits
N/A

### Areas for Consideration
- At issue is Section 3 of Quebec’s Reduced Contribution Regulation , which lists the population groups eligible to obtain daycare subsidies.
- The court is divided on this issue in this case.
- However, he cautioned that the majority should limit its intersectional analysis to the assessment of the full harm of the regulation, preventing the risk of recognizing a new analogous ground without undergoing the established framework.

### Implications
- News Dwong33 , CC0, via Wikimedia Commons The Supreme Court of Canada ruled in an 8-1 majority on Friday that Quebec’s subsidized daycare regulation discriminated against women refugee claimants based on sex.
- At issue is Section 3 of Quebec’s Reduced Contribution Regulation , which lists the population groups eligible to obtain daycare subsidies.
- While it denied all refugee claimants access to subsidized healthcare, the majority found that women refugee claimants faced a disproportionate impact because they carry a greater share of childcare responsibility, which negatively impacts their ability to work.
- In assessing whether the distinction is justified , the majority concluded that limiting daycare subsidies to people with a sufficient connection with Quebec is a legitimate objective of the regulation.

### Expert Commentary
This article covers refugee, quebec, daycare topics. Areas of concern are also raised. Readability: Flesch-Kincaid grade 0.0. Word count: 504.