A Major Victory for Women: Federal Court of Appeal Finds Employment Insurance Rules Discriminatory

Budget 2026 must include a commitment to address this issue of gender discrimination in the Employment Insurance program

Anishinaabe Territory / Ottawa, September 14, 2026 – The National Association of Women and the Law (NAWL) welcomes the Federal Court of Appeal’s decision in Chalifour-Racine v. Canada (Attorney General), finding that the denial of regular Employment Insurance (EI) benefits to individuals who lose their jobs before, during, or after their maternity and parental leave violates women’s equality rights under section 15(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. 

This decision confirms that, rather than protecting women from economic precarity in the event of job loss or childbirth, the current Employment Insurance regime actively increases their financial vulnerability by limiting access to regular benefits when parental leave and unemployment intersect. 

A price paid by women

The six women at the centre of the case lost their jobs shortly before, during or after taking maternity and parental leave. Although they had participated in the workforce and paid EI premiums, they were denied all or most of the regular EI benefits they otherwise would have received because the Employment Insurance Act places restrictions on combining maternity and parental benefits with regular EI benefits and, in some circumstances, requires claimants to return to work and accumulate new insurable hours before they can access regular benefits again. 

As a result of the denial of regular EI benefits, these women were forced to draw from their savings, rely on their partners, and borrow from loved ones in order to meet their needs and the needs of their families. 

The Federal Court of Appeal found that the challenged provisions of the Employment Insurance Act do more than draw a distinction based on sex, they “reinforce the longstanding economic disadvantage associated with pregnancy and motherhood by diminishing the unemployment protection available to women precisely because they bear children and assume the caregiving responsibilities that accompany childbirth.” 

The Court was unequivocal: women should not lose access to unemployment protections because they have taken, or will take, maternity/parental leave. As Justice Gleason notes, “In short, the price the legislation exacts for granting maternity and parental benefits is the loss of job loss benefits, and this price is disproportionately paid by women.”

This is unacceptable. 

Parliament must amend the Employment Insurance Act

The Court declared the challenged provisions of the Employment Insurance Act to be invalid but suspended that declaration of invalidity for one year to provide Parliament with an opportunity to make legislative amendments. 

Parliament must now urgently amend the Employment Insurance Act to bring those sections into compliance with section 15(1) of the Charter and ensure that women are afforded more protection from financial hardship when unemployment and maternity/parental leave coincide, rather than less. 

NAWL will soon release a report examining the eligibility requirements, benefit amounts, and duration of EI regular benefits, maternity benefits, and parental benefits to identify the barriers that women face in accessing income support. The report will put forward concrete recommendations to make the system more equitable and better suited to women’s realities. It is now time for parliamentarians to turn these recommendations into meaningful action.