2 total
Excluding refugee claimants from subsidized childcare violates equality rights.
The appellant challenged the constitutionality of s. 3 of Quebec's Reduced Contribution Regulation, which excluded refugee claimants from eligibility for subsidized childcare.
The majority found the provision created an adverse impact distinction based on sex and on refugee claimant status (an analogous ground under s. 15(1) of the Charter), and that this distinction was discriminatory as it reinforced disadvantage.
The infringement was not justified under s. 1.
The Court read refugee claimants into s. 3 of the Regulation as an eligible category.
One justice dissented, concluding neither sex-based nor refugee-claimant-status-based discrimination was established.
Appeal dismissed as moot after strike ended, without endorsing lower court reasoning.
The Court considered an appeal arising during an indefinite strike by members of Les avocats et notaires de l’État québécois, where an adjournment request had been refused as part of an essential-services context.
By the hearing date, the strike had ended and a special statute had required a return to work.
The Court held the issue was moot and dismissed the appeal without costs.
It stated that dismissing the appeal did not endorse either the process used or the validity of the considerations identified by the Court of Appeal.