Bocock J found that the exclusion of refugee claimants from the Canada child benefit (the “CCB”) was not contrary to s. 7 or 15 of the Charter. Regarding s. 15(1), he noted (at para. 166):
In order to establish a prima facie violation of s. 15(1), the claimant must demonstrate that the impugned law: (1) on its face or in its impact, creates a distinction based on enumerated or analogous grounds; and (2) imposes burdens or denies a benefit in a manner that has the effect of reinforcing, perpetuating, or exacerbating disadvantage.
Neither ground was satisfied. Regarding (1), he was bound by the finding in Toussaint (2011 FCA 213) that immigration status is not an analogous ground, stating (at para. 184):
Refugee claimant status is conceptually a subset of immigration status.
The denial of the CCB to refugee claimants also, in its impact, did not create a distinction on the basis of race or sex. He noted in this regard that “racialized people” already received the CCB in a greater proportion than their representation within the Canadian population, and that there was no evidence to suggest that providing the CCB to refugee claimants “would measurably increase the proportion of racialized people and women collecting the CCB” (para. 199, see also para. 225).
Regarding (2), their temporary ineligibility for the CCB did not have a permanent effect on their well-being and was mitigated by other government assistance. The “eligibility requirements … do not deny the benefit in a way that perpetuates, reinforces, or exacerbates disadvantage” (para. 223).