Female workers who lost their jobs during their maternity leave and who were denied, in whole or in part, regular employment insurance benefits because they had not accumulated enough insurable hours have just won their case. The Federal Court of Appeal upheld their case, reinstating the original ruling, which found that the contested provisions of the Employment Insurance Act violated the Charter of Rights and were discriminatory. The case involves female workers who lose their jobs shortly before, during, or shortly after their maternity leave—due to, for example, a position being eliminated or a mass layoff—and who are unable to receive, in whole or in part, regular employment insurance benefits because they did not accumulate enough insurable hours while on maternity leave. Initially, before the Social Security Tribunal, General Division, the workers had won their case. However, the Appeals Division overturned the decision. The cases of the six workers who filed this challenge date back to 2016, 2017, and 2018. This time, the Federal Court of Appeal has declared the contested provisions of the Employment Insurance Act invalid. However, it has suspended its decision for one year to give the federal government time to “consider the necessary adjustments to the program.” “In other words, the plaintiffs find themselves in a less favorable situation precisely because they took a break from work to have children and care for their newborns—responsibilities that, according to the legislature itself, require income replacement through maternity and parental benefits,” the Federal Court of Appeal first summarized. “However, rather than simply replacing income during maternity and parental leave, the statutory scheme deprives new mothers in the plaintiffs’ situation of the unemployment insurance protection they have earned,” the court said. “This is a burden that stems directly from pregnancy and the responsibility of providing care. In short, the price to pay for receiving statutory maternity and parental benefits is being deprived of the right to unemployment benefits—a price that women pay disproportionately,” concludes the Federal Court of Appeal. The Court also remands the plaintiffs’ claims to the Employment Insurance Commission for reconsideration. Similarly, “individuals in the same situation as the plaintiffs may also seek redress under section 24 of the Charter,” the Federal Court of Appeal said. The decision is stayed for one year to give the federal government time to adjust. “In these circumstances, an immediate order taking effect upon the publication of these reasons could disrupt the operation of a complex contributory insurance system before the legislature has had an opportunity to consider the changes that need to be made to the system,” the Federal Court of Appeal emphasized. This report by The Canadian Press was first published in French on Sept. 3, 2026.
