Miller v. (A.G.) Canada (2002)

Download factum:

At issue in the case was whether provisions of the federal Unemployment Insurance Act, which result in the reduction or loss of regular unemployment insurance benefits by a women who, having received maternity or parental benefits (special benefits), loses her job, violates s.15 of the Charter.

Joanne Miller, the appellant, was entitled to 40 weeks of regular unemployment insurance benefits under the Act. Miller applied for maternity/parental benefits (special benefits) under the Act and received 15 weeks of maternity benefits and then 10 weeks of parental benefits for a total of 25 weeks maternity/paternal benefits. It was Ms Miller's intent to return to work at the end of her maternity/parental leave, however, during her maternity leave she was informed by her employer that her job was terminated.

As a result of the termination of her job, Miller applied for regular unemployment insurance. Instead of being granted 40 weeks of regular benefits, based on the weeks she worked prior to her maternity leave, she was granted only 15 weeks of regular benefits to look for new employment.

Because of provisions in the Act, the Employment Insurance Commission (the "Commission") decided that 25 weeks of Miller's maternity/parental benefits (special benefits) were deducted from her 40 weeks of regular unemployment benefits.

Miller appealed the Commission's decision. LEAF argued that the provisions violated s. 15 of the Charter because they discriminated on the based on sex and family/parental status.

Rather than attending to the impact of the provisions on employed women who care for children, the Court looked to the ameliorative nature of the special benefits regime as a whole, and it rejected the argument that the provisions perpetuated and entrenched stereotypes regarding women, employment and the unemployment system by continuing to disproportionately disentitle workers who depart from the male model of employment from unemployment insurance benefits.

In doing so, the Court narrowly interpreted the principle set out in Law v. Canada that the withholding of a benefit in a manner that reflects the stereotypical application of presumed group or personal characteristics is the ultimate signifier of discrimination.

The Supreme Court of Canada subsequently denied Joanne Miller's application for leave to appeal this decision.

Supporting documents
(LEAF not responsible for content hosted by external links)

Federal Court of Canada decision (2002)