Tens of thousands of Canadian women who suffered a serious illness or injury while they were on parental leave after the birth of a child have been unfairly denied sickness benefits from the federal employment insurance program, a Toronto lawyer says.
Stephen Moreau filed a class-action suit in Federal Court on Thursday on behalf of two Calgary women, both of whom were diagnosed with a debilitating disease while they were collecting parental EI benefits.
If successful, the suit against Canada Employment Insurance Commission could mean additional benefits for 30,000 to 40,000 mothers who found themselves in a similar situation at some point in the past 10 years.
The federal employment insurance plan pays new parents up to 50 weeks of benefits after the birth of a baby. And it will pay as much as 15 weeks of benefits to someone with an illness or injury so severe that they cannot go to work.
Mr. Moreau argues that an amendment to the Employment Insurance Act that the federal government passed in 2002 allows women who are disabled by illness or injury while obtaining parental benefits to collect the sickness benefits and then get the remainder of their parental benefits when they have recovered.
That would stretch to 65 the potential number of weeks of benefits that could be claimed in such instances. But, according to the statement of claim, the EI Commission never fully implemented the amendment, which allowed women to collect the sickness benefits while they were pregnant but not after they had given birth.
“The government said we want women who get ill with post partum depression, for example, during their parental leave, we want them to be able to make this claim,” Mr. Moreau said in a telephone interview. “This was discussed in [a Commons] committee, it was discussed in the House of Commons. Nobody stood up and said, ‘Well, it seems unfair to me.’”
Mr. Moreau said the rightness of his case was established last year with a ruling in favour of one of his clients, Natalya Rougas of Toronto.
Ms. Rougas was diagnosed with Stage 3 breast cancer a month before her parental leave expired. She underwent significant treatment and was unable to return to work. But her claim for sickness benefits was denied because, since she was still on parental leave, she could not prove that she would be working if she was not ill.
Justice R.J. Marin, an EI umpire who was acting as an independent arbiter, ruled that the 2002 amendment did indeed intend to allow women to claim the sickness benefits while on parental leave and that Ms. Rougas was entitled to an additional $6,000. Ms. Rougas said at that time that she hoped her case would set a precedent for other women.
Jennifer McCrea, who is one of the plaintiffs in the new class-action suit, said the additional sickness benefits would have given her more time to recover from the bilateral mastectomy that she had after a diagnosis of breast cancer that was made in July of last year, eight months after the birth of her son.
“When I did go back to work [in November], I was completely frazzled, and completely not ready and still healing mentally and emotionally. It was tough,” Ms. McCrea said in a telephone interview.
When Ms. Rougas won her case, a spokeswoman for Diane Finley, the federal Human Resources Minister, said the decision would not be contested and that changes would have to be made to ensure that women in similar circumstances are treated fairly.
The government refused to discuss the matter on Thursday because it is before the courts.
