Friday, March 6, 2026 – Today, the majority of the Supreme Court of Canada found that a Quebec regulation excluding refugee claimants from accessing subsidized daycare discriminates against refugee claimant women.
This decision is an important win for gender equality, as women disproportionately bear childcare responsibilities, and ensures that women who are refugee claimants aren’t left behind in Quebec’s subsidized daycare program. It also marks an important development in the law of equality because the majority of the Court affirmed the relevance of thorough intersectional analysis when it comes to considering discrimination under section 15 of the Charter.
Ms. Kanyinda is a refugee claimant from Congo in Quebec who was denied access to subsidized daycare because section 3 of Quebec’s Reduced Contribution Regulation (Regulation) excludes refugee claimants from eligibility for subsidized daycare. She challenged this exclusion as indirect discrimination based on sex—since the regulation differentially impacts refugee claimant women—and as direct discrimination based on immigration status and citizenship. While the trial judge dismissed her Charter claims, the Quebec Court of Appeal found that the regulation discriminated on the basis of sex, though it declined to consider her immigration status or citizenship claims. The government of Quebec appealed.
The majority of the Supreme Court of Canada found that s. 3 of the Regulation is discriminatory based on sex, and that the appropriate remedy is to include refugee claimants in the section as another category of parents eligible to enroll their children in subsidized daycare.
LEAF intervened to argue that a robust intersectional analysis at both stages of the s. 15 test is necessary to realizing the promise of substantive equality guaranteed under s. 15. LEAF also argued that when governments enact legislation to remedy inequality, they still have a constitutional obligation to ensure that such legislation does not leave the most marginalized among its targeted population behind.
The majority’s decision affirming the propriety and importance of considering intersecting identities at both stages of the s. 15 test reflects the submissions of LEAF and other interveners—an important victory for future claims. Justice Karakatsanis, writing for the majority, noted that “discrimination cannot be neatly packaged into a single ground and a person will often live with other circumstances, realities, or identities that may enhance or exacerbate their disadvantage.”
“The majority of the Supreme Court’s recognition of intersectionality as an appropriate analytical tool for section 15 is an important step in making the lived realities of many women, trans, and non-binary people more visible,” says Ruth Goba, Executive Director of LEAF. “We also welcome the majority’s clarification that evidence needed to prove discrimination can take a variety of forms, and theacknowledgement that statistics may not always be available.”
LEAF is grateful to have been represented pro bono by Olga Redko and Vanessa Ntaganda (IMK LLP) in this case.
LEAF’s interventions are guided, informed, and supported by a case committee with expertise in the relevant issues. We are grateful to this intervention’s case committee members (in alphabetical order): Grace Ajele, Jennifer Koshan, Colleen Sheppard, Jonnette Watson Hamilton, and Margot Young.
-30-
For media inquiries, please contact [email protected].
About the Women’s Legal Education and Action Fund (LEAF)
The Women’s Legal Education and Action Fund (LEAF) is a national not-for-profit and charity that works to advance the equality rights of women, girls, trans, and non-binary people in Canada through litigation, law reform, and public legal education. Since 1985, LEAF has intervened in more than 130 cases that have helped shape the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. To find out more, visit www.leaf.ca.
