Article content continued

The purpose of the parental benefits “is to compensate parents for the interruption of earnings which occurs when they cease to work or reduce their work to care for a child or children,” Nadon wrote.

“The scheme is clearly not driven by the needs of the parents or the number of children resulting from a pregnancy.”

Martin had applied for parental leave benefits in 2009, after his wife had applied for her parental benefits stemming from the birth of their twin girls, Athena and Lucie. When the government rejected his claim, Martin took his case to a board of referees that rules on Employment Insurance disputes.

Martin had argued that both he and his wife should qualify for the benefits because caring for twins is far more difficult and requires both parents to take leave.

The board agreed, saying that “both parents suffered sleep deprivation, fatigue, and onerous household obligations directly related to the birth of the children.” That decision was overturned in 2011 by an EI umpire.

Martin appealed the umpire’s decision to the Federal Court.

Nadon acknowledged that caring for multiple births can be more onerous but maintained that this did not support a claim of discrimination under the Charter.

“I would add that although the care of twins or, for that matter, any other multiples, necessarily involves more work than caring for a single child, it does not establish the kind of historical disadvantage that perpetuates prejudice or stereotyping.”