Yao – Tax Court of Canada finds that the denial of the CCB benefit to refugee claimants was not contrary to the Charter

Bocock J held that he was bound by the decision in Almadhoun (2018 FCA 112) that, as a matter of statutory interpretation of s. 122.6 – eligible individual - s. (e)(ii) of the Canada child benefit (the “CCB”) provisions, the CCB was not available to refugee claimants. He also found that the exclusion of refugee claimants from the CCB was not contrary to s. 7 or 15 of the Charter. Regarding s. 7 (security of the person), Bocock J noted the finding in Carter (2015 SCC 5) that security of the person is engaged by “state interference with an individual’s physical or psychological integrity, including any state action that causes physical or serious psychological suffering” and found that “[w]hile the mental health of the [refugees before him] was impacted, this does not constitute a ‘serious and profound effect’ … .”

Regarding s. 15(1) (discrimination), he was bound by the finding in Toussaint (2011 FCA 213) that immigration status is not an analogous ground, and he indicated that “[r]efugee claimant status is conceptually a subset of immigration status.”

The denial of the CCB to refugees 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 “insufficient evidence that excluding refugee claimants from the CCB disproportionately affects racialized women receiving the benefit.”

Neal Armstrong. Summaries of Yao v. The King, 2024 TCC 19 under s. 122.6 – eligible individual - s. (e)(ii), Charter, s. 7(1), s. 15(1).