Thus, Ms. Reyes is prone to greater harm and negative effects by being denied access to the Program as “the trauma is exacerbated in women with mental health or addiction issues.”
Reasons for Decision, at para 41(d).
2) Does the distinction create a disadvantage by, for example, perpetuating prejudice or stereotyping?
[13] There is no need to exclude women convicted of crimes involving violence from the Program. To exclude such women would place a disadvantage on the group. As stated in R. v. Kapp:
In Andrews, McIntyre J. viewed discriminatory impact through… stereotyping on the basis of these grounds that results in a decision that does not correspond to a claimant’s or group’s actual circumstances and characteristics. Andrews, for example, …show more content…
v. Kapp, 2008 SCC 41 at para 18.
[14] The Andrews case runs parallel to the case at hand; Ms. Reyes circumstance is similar in nature to that of Andrews’. The prohibition against women convicted of crimes involving violence from applying to the Mother-Child Program is based on a stereotype that such women pose a threat to their children and are unfit to care for their child. This denies such women a privilege, on the basis of what the government believes, rather than their actual abilities.
[15] Furthermore, women convicted of crimes involving violence face the same harms as other women who are deprived of access to newborns. The government has no evidence that all women convicted crimes involving violence pose a threat to their newborns as no exploratory study was done to investigate this possibility prior to the amendment of the Directive. Therefore, there is no evidence to say that such women are unfit to care for their child, the stereotype that the government is …show more content…
In terms of sex, the law assumes all mothers convicted of certain crimes are unfit to care for their children. This deprives 45% of incarcerated mothers, who were already enrolled in the Program at a given time, access to the Program.
Reasons for Decision, at para 45(a).
[17] Upon review of Inglis v. British Columbia (Minister of Public Safety), Ms. Wrenshall, the district director of Burnaby Correctional Centre for Women (BCCW), stated the philosophy of their program recognized “The relationship between mothers and children, and the connection to family and community, are critical to women offenders and should be supported.” Ms. Wrenshall also noted:
Corrections recognized that women were typically primary caregivers for their children: and that just because the women were incarcerated did not mean that they were bad mothers. Their approach acknowledged that the women would typically recover custody after their incarceration and that it did not make sense to contribute to a disconnection of the family bond.

Inglis v. British Columbia (Minister of Public Safety), 2013 BCSC 2309 at paras