With more and more Canadians working well past the
'traditional' retirement age, benefit entitlements have
become more of a concern for both employees and employers.
On November 26, 2013, the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (the
"Tribunal") released an Interim Decision in Talos v
Grand Erie District School Board allowing a constitutional
challenge to section 25(2.1) of the Human Rights Code (the
"Code") to proceed through the hearing process.
Section 25(2.1) of the Code states that differential treatment
on the basis of age with respect to employee benefits or group
insurance plans will not constitute discrimination as long as an
employee benefit, pension, superannuation or group insurance plan
or fund complies with the Employment Standards Act, 2000
(the "ESA"), and its regulations. Section 44(1) of the
ESA states that no employer shall provide, offer or arrange for a
benefit plan that treats an employee differently due to the
employee's age, sex or marital status. However, "age"
is defined in Ontario Regulation 286/01 to the ESA as "any age
of 18 years or more and less than 65 years". As a result,
differential treatment on the basis of age with respect to benefits
for an employee who is over the age of 65 is not a breach of the
ESA, and, pursuant to section 25(2.1) of the Code, does not
The Context of the Constitutional Challenge
Steve Talos ("Talos"), a teacher employed by the Grand
Erie District School Board, brought an Application alleging
discrimination on the basis of age in regards to the School
Board's benefit plan, which provided that all employee benefits
under the plan were to cease at age 65. After a summary hearing was
granted to determine whether the Application should be dismissed as
having no reasonable prospect of success, Talos filed a Notice of
Constitutional Question arguing that section 25(2.1) of the Code
contravenes section 15 of the Charter of Rights and
At the summary hearing, the Tribunal determined that Talos'
allegations of discrimination on the basis of age had no reasonable
prospect of success unless the constitutional challenge to section
25(2.1) of the Code was successful.
The Tribunal confirmed that Talos' constitutional challenge
to section 25(2.1) of the Code would proceed through the hearing
process. If the challenge is successful, it will require many
employers to make significant changes to the benefits and group
insurance plans currently offered (or not offered) to employees
over the age of 65.
To read the Interim Decision in Talos v Grand Erie District
School Board, 2013 HRTO 1949, please click here.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
Unfortunately, reasonable accommodation for employees in the workplace continues to be the source of significant litigation and even today we continue to see outrageous examples of employers behaving badly.
A former teacher at Bodwell High School has learned a valuable lesson from the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal— it is not discriminatory for an employer to offer child-related benefits to only employees with children.
We are now beginning to see reported cases involving charges and subsequent fines laid against employers for failing to provide information, instruction and supervision to protect a worker from workplace violence.
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).