On March 6, 2026, right in time for International Women’s Day, the Supreme Court of Canada released its decision in Quebec (Attorney General) v. Kanyinda. Eight of nine justices ruled in favour of Ms. Kanyinda, a refugee claimant who was denied access to Quebec’s subsidized childcare program. Justice Karakatsanis, writing for the majority, ruled that excluding refugee claimants from subsidized childcare discriminated against women in a way that violated section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and that the government could not justify this discrimination. ISAC intervened in Kanyinda because subsidized childcare is a vital income security benefit that enables participation in the workforce, especially for women.
The majority found discrimination based on sex and chose not to decide whether refugee claimant status should be added as a protected ground under s. 15, leaving that issue for a future case. Chief Justice Wagner also ruled in Ms. Kanyinda’s favour, but wrote that refugee claimant status should be recognized as a characteristic that deserves legal protection from discrimination. This new recognition by the Chief Justice, while not binding on lower courts, opens the door to make this argument in other contexts, like the Canada Child Benefit, which also excludes refugee claimants.
What this case was about
Ms. Kanyinda was a refugee claimant with three young children who could not access Quebec’s subsidized childcare program because of her immigration status. She brought a legal challenge, claiming this rule disadvantages women refugee claimants, who take on the bulk of childcare work in their families.
To decide whether a claimant has experienced illegal discrimination under the Charter, courts consider two things. First, they consider whether a law or government action creates a distinction based on a characteristic listed in section 15 of the Charter, or a characteristic similar to those listed. The court then considers whether the distinction has the effect of reinforcing or making a claimant’s disadvantage worse.
Court strengthens substantive equality based on ISAC’s arguments
In Kanyinda, the top court clarified the law in meaningful ways that may help future equality claimants. In doing so, the Court adopted some of ISAC’s and other interveners’ arguments.
Kanyinda is the first case in which the Supreme Court explicitly recognizes that courts ought to take an intersectional approach to discrimination. This means that people in the same protected group, for example, women, may face unique challenges based on their other intersecting identities and realities, like their socioeconomic status or their status as a refugee claimant. A majority of the Court explained that a contextual appreciation of intersecting identities and circumstances can help courts in both assessing the real-world impacts of the challenged law, and the way that a law may perpetuate existing disadvantage.
This was exactly the approach ISAC encouraged the Court to adopt in its intervener arguments because, though socioeconomic status is not a characteristic protected by s. 15, this status informs the lived reality of our client communities. There are many cases where a claimant’s identity does not fit neatly into the boxes of the law, but the Court affirmed that is not a reason to ask them to leave that identity at the courtroom door.
ISAC also argued that exclusion from the labour market upon arrival to Canada due to lack of affordable childcare creates a cascade of other economic disadvantages for refugee claimant women, including limiting access to future income security benefits. The majority discusses this economic disadvantage at paras. 86-87. Chief Justice Wagner’s reasons also explicitly cite ISAC’s written arguments on this point at para. 243.
Why this case matters
The Court’s decision is a major win for equality rights in Canada and will help people living on a low-income argue for equality in access to benefits in the future.
Kanyinda will make headway in reducing barriers to equality for populations that have historically been excluded, including women, refugee claimants, and other low-income communities who face intersecting forms of disadvantage.
ISAC Staff Lawyers Robin Nobleman and Adrian Merdzan were honoured to be part of this significant decision. We laud Ms. Kanyinda for her courage to advance her case so that others in her position can benefit from the Charter’s s. 15 protection. We also commend the Supreme Court on their thoughtful and important reasons.
You can read ISAC’s intervention factum here.
You can read the Supreme Court’s decision here.