Termination of Benefits for Employees over 65

March 11, 2015

The number of workers over the age of 65 has risen significantly in recent years.  The increasing number of older employees who are choosing to remain in the workplace, combined with the (near) elimination of mandatory retirement, has raised many considerations that employers have not previously addressed. One such consideration is the termination of benefits after an employee reaches the age of 65. While most employers routinely terminate benefits at age 65, the changing workforce demographic has created a demand for benefits coverage for older workers. Unfortunately, it is difficult to provide benefits to employees past the age of 65 because insurers either will not provide the coverage, or will only do so at a cost that is unacceptable to the employer. This has created conflict between some employers and employees, and has led to legal challenges.

In Ontario, the Human Rights Tribunal ruled in Kartna v Toronto (City), [2014] OHRTD No. 387 that the termination of long-term disability benefits for workers over the age of 65 does not infringe the Ontario Human Rights Code (the “Code”). In that case, a unionized employee filed a complaint alleging that the termination of his LTD benefits when he turned 65 was discriminatory on the basis of age. The Tribunal upheld prior case law which established that under the Code and the Ontario Employment Standards Act (“ESA”), differential treatment on the basis of age in respect of group insurance is permitted if the person is over 65. This is because Section 25(2.1) of the Code provides that the right to equal treatment is not infringed by a group insurance plan that complies with the ESA, and the ESA only prohibits discrimination in respect of a benefit plan on the basis of age if the person’s age is more than 18 years but less than 65 years. Therefore, the ESA and the Code do not prohibit discrimination in respect of a benefit plan on the basis of age if the person is 65 years of age or older.

Other provinces in Canada have similar exceptions in their human rights legislation. For example, Section 6(g) of the Nova Scotia Human Rights Act provides that the prohibition on discrimination in Section 5(1) does not apply to “prevent, on account of age, the operation of a bona fide pension plan or the terms or conditions of a bona fide group or employee insurance plan”.  While these provisions provide some protections to employers, it is likely that employees will continue their efforts to secure benefits after the age of 65. Moreover, there is some question of the constitutionality of the exemptions in human rights legislation. For example, in Ontario, the question of whether the exemption violates the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is currently before the Human Rights Tribunal in Talos v Grand Erie District School Board. This issue is likely to evolve significantly in the coming years and employers would be well advised to stay abreast of changes in this area of the law.

Related Services

Employment & Labour

Related Articles

The Supreme Court of Canada’s Decision on Historical Child Support Awards

In the Supreme Court of Canada’s most recent family law decision, Michel v. Graydon, 2020 SCC 24, the Court settles a long-standing question about whether child support can be recalculated retroactively once a child has reached adulthood. The short answer is that child support is the right of the child and, with that fundamental tenant […]

read more

Employer’s Challenges and Obligations during the COVID-19 Outbreak

“With the combination of serious public health and economic impacts caused by COVID-19, employers are finding themselves facing unprecedented challenges”. The article Employer’s Challenges and Obligations during the COVID-19 Outbreak, written by Halifax Partner Geoff Breen & Halifax Associate Drew Ritchie, was published in the Spring 2020 edition of the Canadian Bar Association’s Nova Voce. Click here to read the full […]

read more

The Potential High Cost of a Small Claims Action

The recent decision of Justice Fred Ferguson, Mercure v Kaat Auto Sales, 2020 NBQB 39 (CanLII), (“Mercure v Kaat Auto Sales”) is another reminder to parties to think carefully before filing a Small Claims action in New Brunswick. Background In New Brunswick, a litigant can commence a Small Claim so long as the monetary amounts […]

read more
view all
Cox & Palmer publications are intended to provide information of a general nature only and not legal advice. The information presented is current to the date of publication and may be subject to change following the publication date.