The National Association of Women and the Law Welcomes the Supreme Court of Canada’s Decision in Quebec v. Kanyinda

By recognizing that the exclusion of asylum seekers from the subsidized childcare system is discriminatory toward women, the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision represents a substantial victory for women’s equality rights. 

On March 6, 2026, the Supreme Court judges confirmed that denying asylum seekers access to daycare centres has a disproportionate impact on women in this group and consequently creates a distinction based on sex. 

This sex-based distinction is discriminatory because the lack of access to subsidized childcare perpetuates socio-economic disadvantages that are compounded by the additional vulnerabilities faced by women asylum seekers. 

The National Association of Women and the Law (NAWL), alongside the David Asper Centre for Constitutional Rights, highlighted in their intervention the importance of an intersectional analysis of gender inequalities. The Court recognized that “people in the same protected group may have very different experiences and face unique challenges based on their intersecting identities and realities — including, for example, their race, religion, ethnic background, sex, age, disability, sexual orientation, parental status, socioeconomic status, immigration status, or language abilities.” 

“People experience discrimination as whole persons, not as an aggregate of separate characteristics.”  

– National Association of Women and the Law and the David Asper Centre for Constitutional Rights, cited by the Supreme Court of Canada. 

The facts 

When Ms. Kanyinda arrived in Quebec with her three young children, she was denied access to subsidized childcare services because the province does not offer this subsidy to asylum seekers who have not yet obtained refugee status, under the Regulation respecting reduced contribution.  

As women continue to assume a greater share of childcare responsibilities, and because the process for reviewing refugee status claims often takes years, denying access to subsidized childcare affects the ability of some women asylum seekers with young children to enter the labour market. 

This exclusion reinforces and deepens the disadvantages faced by women seeking asylum. 

Writing for the majority, Justice Karakatsanis concluded that the regulation is discriminatory in its effects. Although the rule applies equally to all asylum seekers, it disproportionately affects women, who are more likely to bear primary childcare responsibilities. Access to affordable childcare is closely tied to their ability to participate in the labour market. As a result, parents residing in Quebec as asylum seekers must be eligible for subsidized childcare services.  

NAWL is thrilled to have contributed to this victory for women’s rights. Adopting an intersectional understanding of gender equality ensures that the most marginalized people benefit from the full protection offered by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The case of Quebec v. Kanyinda marks an important step in the application of equality rights from an intersectional perspective. 

The National Association of Women and the Law thanks its legal team (Kerri Froc, Suzanne Zaccour, and Cheryl Milne for the David Asper Centre for Constitutional Rights), its pro bono agents Jean-Simon Schoenholz and Debra Diepeveen (Norton Rose Fullbright), and the other individuals who contributed to this intervention (Amanda Therrien, Lise Gotell, Vrinda Narain, Martha Jackman, Jennifer Koshan, Angela Lee, Kabir Singh Dhillon, and Bjorn Wagenpfeil).