Tribunal looks at case involving Ontario township ending monthly supplements given to worker
An Ontario worker who lost his long-term disability benefits on his 65th birthday despite continuing to work full-time for his employer has no recourse under human rights law, a tribunal has ruled.
Adjudicator Emily Morton dismissed Philip Gauthier's discrimination complaint against the Corporation of the Township of Ignace, finding that age-based cutoffs in employee benefit plans are explicitly permitted under provincial law.
The decision from the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario clarifies a critical exemption in the Ontario Human Rights Code that allows employers to maintain benefit plans with age restrictions, provided those plans comply with the Employment Standards Act.
Still on payroll but off disability coverage
Gauthier injured himself in July 2022 while working full-time for the Township of Ignace and went on disability leave. His employment contract entitled him to 17 weeks of short-term disability followed by up to 24 months of long-term disability coverage. The employer also paid a $900 monthly supplement while he received LTD benefits.
On April 12, 2023, the benefits provider notified Gauthier that his LTD coverage would terminate on July 26, 2023—his 65th birthday. When he inquired further, the provider confirmed age was the sole reason for the termination. The Township subsequently ended the monthly supplement on Sept. 6, 2023.
Gauthier argued he should have received the full 24 months of LTD benefits available to "every other full-time employee" and that his employer bore responsibility for negotiating a discriminatory contract. He filed his human rights application on July 24, 2024, just within the one-year limitation period from when his benefits actually ceased.
Legal framework behind age-based cutoffs
The tribunal's analysis centred on Section 25(2.1) of the Ontario Human Rights Code, which states: "The right under section 5 to equal treatment with respect to employment without discrimination because of age is not infringed by an employee benefit, pension, superannuation or group insurance plan or fund that complies with the Employment Standards Act, 2000 and the Regulations thereunder."
Ontario Regulation 286/01 under the Employment Standards Act defines "age" for benefit plan purposes as "any age of 18 years or more and less than 65 years." This regulatory framework effectively permits employers to design benefit plans that treat employees differently once they reach 65.
Morton found the Township's LTD plan fell squarely within this exemption. The tribunal determined that "the termination of benefits after an employee turns 65 is statute-compliant" and, therefore, outside the tribunal's jurisdiction to review.
What decision means for disability benefits
While acknowledging Gauthier's concern that he "performs the same tasks and hours of labour as his co-workers but is not eligible for benefits as a result of his age," Morton concluded the legislature had created clear boundaries for age-based benefit distinctions.
The adjudicator noted that Gauthier referenced the 2018 Talos decision, where another tribunal adjudicator found Section 25(2.1) unconstitutional regarding health and dental benefits.
However, Morton distinguished that case, noting it "does not address long-term disability insurance, pension plans and superannuation funds."
Gauthier had indicated in his application an intention to challenge Section 25(2.1) as unconstitutional under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms but never filed the required Notice of Constitutional Question or advanced those arguments. Other Canadian human rights tribunals have declined to follow Talos in disability benefit cases.
In her final analysis, Morton wrote: "The legislature has created a clear exemption in s. 25(2.1) of the Code, which I find applies here. The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction over the application as the specific exemption in s. 25(2.1) applies."
