Federal Court of Appeal Nadon, Dawson and Stratas JJ.A.
Judgment: January 24, 2013.
(133 paras.)
Constitutional law — Canadian Charter of Rights and
Freedoms — Equality rights — Equal benefit of the law —
Application by Martin for judicial review of Umpire's decision
dismissed — Applicant and spouse were parents of twins —
They each sought maximum available parental benefits under
Employment Insurance Act — Umpire correctly concluded Act
provided for maximum of 35 weeks of benefits regardless of
whether one or more children were born of single pregnancy —
Umpire correctly found that ss. 2(1), 7, 8 and 12 of Act did
not infringe s. 15(1) Charter rights — Purpose of scheme was
to compensate for lost earnings rather than compensate for
need related to number of children — Canadian Charter of
Rights and Freedoms, s. 15(1) — Employment Insurance Act, ss.
2(1), 7, 8, 12, 12(3), 12(3)(b), 12(4), 12(4)(b), 12(4.1),
12(8), 23, 23(4) — Employment Insurance Regulations, s.
76.21.
Employment insurance — Benefits and claims — Benefits
— Special benefits — Parental — Appeals and judicial review
— Application by Martin for judicial review of Umpire's
decision dismissed — Applicant and spouse were parents of
twins — They each sought maximum available parental benefits
under Employment Insurance Act — Umpire correctly concluded
Act provided for maximum of 35 weeks of benefits regardless of
whether one or more children were born of single pregnancy —
Umpire correctly found that ss. 2(1), 7, 8 and 12 of Act did
not infringe s. 15(1) Charter rights — Purpose of scheme was
to compensate for lost earnings rather than compensate for
need related to number of children — Canadian Charter of
Rights and Freedoms, s. 15(1) — Employment Insurance Act, ss.
2(1), 7, 8, 12, 12(3), 12(3)(b), 12(4), 12(4)(b), 12(4.1),
12(8), 23, 23(4) — Employment Insurance Regulations, s.
76.21.
Employment insurance — Constitutional issues — Canadian
Charter of Rights and Freedoms — Application by Martin for
judicial review of Umpire's decision dismissed — Applicant
and spouse were parents of twins — They each sought maximum
available parental benefits under Employment Insurance Act —
Umpire correctly concluded Act provided for maximum of 35
weeks of benefits regardless of whether one or more children
were born of single pregnancy — Umpire correctly found that
ss. 2(1), 7, 8 and 12 of Act did not infringe s. 15(1) Charter
rights — Purpose of scheme was to compensate for lost
earnings rather than compensate for need related to number of
children — Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, s. 15(1)
— Employment Insurance Act, ss. 2(1), 7, 8, 12, 12(3),
12(3)(b), 12(4), 12(4)(b), 12(4.1), 12(8), 23, 23(4) —
Employment Insurance Regulations, s. 76.21.
Application by Martin for judicial review of an Umpire's
decision allowing an appeal by the Canada Employment Insurance
Commission. The applicant's spouse gave birth to twins in
2009. At issue was whether both were entitled to 35 weeks of
parental benefits under the Employment Insurance Act. The
Commission initially found the applicant did not qualify for
benefits, as his spouse applied for benefits, and a multiple
birth was treated as a single birth for the purpose of
employment benefits. The Board of Referees found the applicant
qualified for benefits by virtue of s. 12(4) of the Employment
Insurance Act, notwithstanding his spouse applied and was
approved for 35 weeks of parental benefits. The Board ruled
the provision allowed a claim for each pregnancy and was not
limited to one pregnancy. The Umpire found the Board erred in
its interpretation of the Act, as s. 12(4) provided for a
maximum of 35 weeks of benefits regardless of whether one or
more children were born of a single pregnancy. The Umpire
found the Board did not have jurisdiction to deal with the
applicant's Charter submissions and concluded that ss. 2(1),
7, 8 and 12 did not infringe the applicant's s. 15 Charter
rights. The Umpire found that any distinction faced by the
parents of twins did not create a disadvantage by perpetuating
prejudice or stereotyping. The applicant sought judicial
review.
HELD: Application dismissed. The Umpire did not err in
concluding the Act did not allow each parent of twins to
receive 35 weeks of parental benefits. The correct
interpretation of s. 12(4)(b) of the Act was a further limit
upon the period in which the maximum benefits could be paid,
as provided by s. 12(3)(b). Read in conjunction with s. 23,
there was no doubt the maximum benefits payable to two
claimants who left work to care for one or more newborn
children were to be shared. Such interpretation was consistent
with the purpose of the parental benefits scheme, which was to
compensate for an interruption to earnings rather than to
compensate based on needs due to the number of children
arising from a pregnancy. The Umpire correctly determined the
Board's jurisdiction in respect of Charter issues and did not
err in determining the parental benefit provisions of the Act
did not infringe s. 15(1) of the Charter. The Umpire carefully
considered the evidence put forward by the applicant and the
relevant contextual factors. The Umpire correctly found the
distinction made by the Act did not create a disadvantage by
perpetuating prejudice or stereotypes.
