In University Health Network v. Ontario Nurses’ Association (2025 CanLII 47230), Arbitrator Gedalof considered whether the mandatory termination of a bargaining unit member’s long-term disability (“LTD”) benefits at age 65 constituted age discrimination. While the termination of benefits at age 65 was consistent with the collective agreement, and exemptions under the Ontario Human Rights Code (the “Code”) and Employment Standards Act (“ESA”), the Union argued that these exemptions breached of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms (the “Charter”).
The Facts
The Ontario Nurses’ Association (the “Union”) argued that the ESA and Code carveouts were discriminatory against employees aged 65 and older, and that the only justifiable reasons to deny LTD benefits to such employees would be based on actuarial data or in consideration of relevant pension benefits. Despite this argument, the Union did concede that some degree of age-based discrimination would be appropriate, such as mandatory termination of LTD benefits at age 71.
The University Health Network (the “Employer”) argued that it was not the arbitrator’s place to second guess the legislature, and that striking this legislative framework down would require a broader analysis than merely considering whether the impugned provisions were in fact discriminatory. They also argued that while the carveouts may be in violation of section 15 of the Charter, they were justifiable under section 1 of the Charter.
Both parties acknowledged that if the ESA and Code carveouts were found to be justifiable under section 1, the grievance would fail.
The Decision
Applying the Oakes test, Arbitrator Gedalof found that the carveouts were saved by section 1 of the Charter, remaining good law and enforceable despite being discriminatory. Age-based limits on access to LTD benefits serve the pressing and substantial objective of ensuring those benefits plans remain solvent and viable for as many workers as possible. Further, limiting LTD benefits at age 65 is rationally connected to this objective and minimally impairing of Charter Rights because other government pension plans become available to workers at that age, meaning those workers can be removed from their LTD plans without losing all of their potential income.
Takeaways and Impact
This decision confirms that age-based distinctions in LTD plans are valid and enforceable. Nevertheless, employers should be mindful of human rights and Charter considerations when administering LTD plans, particularly where older workers may be adversely affected. Additionally, it’s crucial to note that this decision applies to LTD plans only; automatic termination of an employee’s participation in their employer’s healthcare, dental, and life insurance benefits plans when they reach a certain age has been previously found unlawful by Ontario courts (see Talos v. Grand Erie District School Board, 2018 HRTO 680 (CanLII)).
PooranLaw will continue to monitor ongoing case law that may affect our clients and the broader human services sector. If you require legal guidance or support please reach out to your regular PooranLaw lawyer or a member of our team.
Note: This article provides general information only and does not constitute, and should not be relied upon as, legal advice or opinion. PooranLaw Professional Corporation holds the copyright to this article and its contents may not be copied or reproduced in any form, in whole or in part, without the express permission of PooranLaw Professional Corporation.
