Gosselin v. Quebec
Gosselin v. Quebec deals with an arbitrary age rule that placed citizens at risk of poverty. In the 1980s the Government of Quebec cut the welfare rate of those under 30 to 170 dollars a month. This was about a third of the amount deemed necessary to meet the basic costs of food and shelter.
The Supreme Court of Canada accepted the argument that young people could be treated differently because their circumstances were different.
The Women’s Court of Canada found that the policy’s distinction between under-30 welfare recipients and over-30 welfare recipients had nothing to do with differing needs or circumstances, but rather was based on negative stereotypes.
Summary
As in Law v. Canada, the case of Gosselin v. Quebec also deals with an arbitrary age rule that placed citizens at risk of poverty.
In the 1980s the Government of Quebec, facing a serious recession and high unemployment rates particularly among young people, decided to cut the welfare rate of those under 30 to 170 dollars a month. This was about a third of the amount that the government had determined was necessary to meet the basic costs of food and shelter.
The Quebec government’s defense was that work-readiness programs were available, permitting those enrolled to get an increased welfare rate. The reduced rate was intended as an incentive for the young recipients to find work or get training. The Supreme Court of Canada agreed that young people could be treated differently because their circumstances were different. However, there were 75,000 under-30 recipients and only 30,000 spaces. There were also qualifications for entrance to the programs, waiting periods, and older welfare recipients competing for the spaces.
The impact of living on the reduced rate was devastating. Many young people ended up cold, malnourished, homeless and frightened. Some were reduced to begging and petty theft to survive; others were suicidal. The young women in the group became more vulnerable to sexual abuse. Many were sexually harassed in squats and rooming houses; some resorted to trading sex for food or shelter.
In our judgment, the Quebec welfare policy’s distinction between under-30 welfare recipients and over-30 welfare recipients had nothing to do with differing needs or circumstances. All of the members of both groups had been individually assessed and determined to be in need of welfare. The cost of food, clothing and shelter was no different for the under-30 year olds than for those over-30.
Both groups were equally in need of training and remedial education programs. However, those in the older group were offered extra subsidies if they participated in these programs, while the under-30s had their rate cut to $170, with participation in the programs offered as the (unreliable) means of struggling back to the regular rate.
The differential treatment of two groups shows that the under-30 year olds were considered to be lax, unmotivated and unlikely to seek training or education unless coerced by deprivation. This discriminatory stereotyping violated the equality guarantees of the Charter.
The Women’s Court of Canada also found that Quebec’s welfare policy violated the right to life, liberty and security of the person. The deprivations caused by the reduced welfare rate threatened Louise Gosselin’s physical and mental health, and her safety.