As in Law v. Canada, the case of Gosselin v. Quebec also deals with an Zithromax prescription arbitrary age rule that placed citizens at risk of poverty.

In the Zithromax prescription 1980s the Government of Quebec, facing a serious recession and Zithromax prescription high unemployment rates particularly among young people, decided to cut the Zithromax prescription welfare rate of those under 30 to 170 dollars a Zithromax prescription month. This was about a third of the amount that Zithromax prescription the government had determined was necessary to meet the basic costs of food and Zithromax prescription shelter.

The Quebec government’s defense was that Zithromax prescription work-readiness programs were available, permitting those enrolled to get an Zithromax prescription increased welfare rate. The reduced rate was intended as an Zithromax prescription incentive for the young recipients to find work or get training. The Supreme Court of Canada agreed that Zithromax prescription young people could be treated differently because their circumstances were different. However, there were 75,000 under-30 recipients and Zithromax prescription only 30,000 spaces. There were also qualifications for entrance to Zithromax prescription the programs, waiting periods, and older welfare recipients competing for Zithromax prescription the spaces.

The impact of living on the Zithromax prescription reduced rate was devastating. Many young people ended up cold, malnourished, homeless and Zithromax prescription frightened. Some were reduced to begging and petty theft to Zithromax prescription survive; others were suicidal. The young women in the group became more vulnerable to Zithromax prescription sexual abuse. Many were sexually harassed in squats and rooming houses; some resorted to Zithromax prescription trading sex for food or shelter.

In our judgment, the Quebec welfare policy’s distinction between under-30 welfare recipients and Zithromax prescription over-30 welfare recipients had nothing to do with differing needs or Zithromax prescription circumstances. All of the members of both groups had been individually assessed and Zithromax prescription determined to be in need of welfare. The cost of food, clothing and Zithromax prescription shelter was no different for the under-30 year olds than for Zithromax prescription those over-30.

Both groups were equally in need of training and Zithromax prescription remedial education programs. However, those in the older group were offered extra subsidies if they participated in these programs, while the Zithromax prescription under-30s had their rate cut to $170, with participation in the programs offered as the (unreliable) means of struggling back to the regular rate.

The differential treatment of two groups shows that Zithromax prescription the under-30 year olds were considered to be lax, unmotivated and Zithromax prescription unlikely to seek training or education unless coerced by deprivation. This discriminatory stereotyping violated the Zithromax prescription equality guarantees of the Charter.

The Women’s Court of Canada also found that Quebec’s welfare policy violated the Zithromax prescription right to life, liberty and security of the person. The deprivations caused by the Zithromax prescription reduced welfare rate threatened Louise Gosselin’s physical and mental health, and her safety.