Law v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration)
Law v. Canada uncovers the gender issues in a judgment originally decided on other grounds. Ms. Law challenged the fact that the Canada Pension Plan treats the surviving spouse of a deceased contributor differently depending on age, refusing benefits to those under 35 with no dependents.
In upholding this age exclusion, the Supreme Court failed to consider the complete picture of the program and its effects. Since most surviving spouses in all age groups are women, denying any assistance to those under a certain age affects mainly women.
In the opinion of the Women’s Court, treating women the same as men represented a misapplication of equality principles. It failed to take into account that couples tend to make life decisions that financially disadvantage the female partner. And it ignored the continuing reality that women still face more obstacles in the work arena.
Summary
The case of Law v. Canada uncovers the gender issues in a judgment originally decided on other grounds. The claimant, Ms. Law, was 30 years old when her husband died. She challenged the fact that the Canada Pension Plan treats the surviving spouse of a deceased contributor differently depending on age, declining to provide benefits to those under 35 who have no dependents.
In upholding the right of the Pension Plan to enforce this age exclusion, the Supreme Court failed to consider the complete picture of the program and its effects. While it may be sensible to tell younger survivors not to expect income support for the long-term, this does not explain why the CPP does not provide for at least short-term assistance in adjusting to the loss of a spouse’s income. Since most surviving spouses in all age groups are women, denying any assistance to those under a certain age affects mainly women.
To assume that the loss of a spouse by younger survivors causes no serious financial hardship, even in the short term, seems to adopt a male norm. It treats the typical younger spouse as someone who is employed and fully self-sufficient. Unfortunately, this description is still more accurate for men than for women. According to recent data, wives’ earnings represent only 32% of the income of dual-earner families. Even women without children are more likely to shoulder the lion’s share of household responsibilities to the detriment of their earning capacity.
Many women really are just one divorce – or death – away from poverty. The loss of a male spouse usually causes a sharper drop in the surviving female spouse’s standard of living than the reverse, and the income is much harder to make up.
In the opinion of the Women’s Court, treating women the same as men represented a misapplication of equality principles. It failed to take into account that, even in the absence of children, married couples tend to make life decisions that financially disadvantage the female partner. And it ignored the continuing reality that women still face more obstacles in the work arena.
The challenge of equality judgments is to bring a clear-sighted examination of the actual conditions of people’s lives in order to determine what they actually need in order to flourish on their own terms and fully participate in society.
The Women’s Court of Canada holds that a survivor pension scheme that has so clearly ignored the social conditions affecting younger women must be found to be discriminatory not only on the basis of age, but also on the basis of sex.