Lepine v Correctional Services Canada [2024]

Case summary

In this Canadian Human Rights Tribunal complaint, Amanda Lepine and her son (the “Complainants”) alleged that Correctional Services Canada (CSC) discriminated against them and violated section 5 of the Canadian Human Rights Act (CHRA). Section 5 of the CHRA prohibits discriminatory practices in the provision of goods, services or accommodation based on a prohibited ground, such as race or disability.  

The Complainants alleged that the CSC discriminated against them based on race, ethnic origin, family status, disability, sex, and age. They also alleged that CSC: 

• delayed its response to Ms. Lepine’s application to the Mother-Child program.
• failed to provide Ms. Lepine with adequate prenatal and postnatal care.
• denied Ms. Lepine the right to a safe and dignified labour and birth experience and failed to protect her privacy.
• failed to provide Lepine’s child with access to appropriate necessities such as basic nutrition and hygiene products.
• denied Ms. Lepine access to appropriate services and supports.
• failed to accommodate Ms. Lepine’s disability.

This case has important implications for incarcerated pregnant people who are affected by overlapping systems of oppression, including racism, anti-Indigenous racism, ableism, and class.

West Coast LEAF’s involvement

West Coast LEAF was granted interested party status in this case to provide insights about the systemic and intersecting grounds of discrimination faced by women and people who are marginalized because of their gender, including those who are criminalized or in the prison system.  

Our plan was to argue for a robust and intersectional approach to human rights law for incarcerated pregnant people and their newborns that addresses the unique and complex nature of discrimination they face, both within the prison system and in Canadian society more broadly.  

We also planned to highlight how facially neutral policies can have a disproportionate impact on birth parents and their children. This means that CSC must consider and account for the intimate and unique medical and emotional aspects of pregnancy, childbirth, and the postpartum period. Furthermore, CSC’s approach to the mother-child program should avoid imposing unjustifiable stressors and impeding mother-child bonding.  

Our participation in this case built on our longstanding work to support family wellbeing and advocacy for gender justice.  

What’s next

This case was resolved by the parties before a hearing took place. Thank you to our pro bono counsel team- including lawyers from Sugden, McFee & Roos LPP and JFK Law LLP- for their work on our intervention.

Check out our issue areas of Criminalization and Family Well-Being for more related work.