Concerns for the wellbeing of older persons are rarely framed as human rights issues entrenched in age discrimination. This may now be changing after the shocking revelations of maltreatment and excess deaths of older persons in Canadian care homes in 2020.

The abuses exposed in 2020 were predictable consequences of Canada’s longstanding neglect of older persons’ fundamental rights. Decades of efforts by Canadian civil society organizations (CSOs) along with international CSOs, and UN human rights bodies may now be gaining traction in a drive for a United Nations (UN) treaty to spell out and guarantee the fundamental human rights of . . . [more]

By Lewis Waring, Paralegal, Student-at-Law, Editor, First Reference Inc.

In Nowicki v Labourer’s International Union of North America (LIUNA) Local 1059 (“Nowicki”), the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario found that an employer’s offer of retirement, although it was an explicit attempt to remove an employee from her office, was not discriminatory under the Human Rights Code (“Code“) because it was not based upon her age or a disability. This finding was significant because the employee did in fact have a history of suffering from a disability, namely, depression. Also, the finding in Nowicki is significant because her age, being in . . . [more]

Last week the Alberta Human Rights Amendment Act, 2017 passed 3rd reading. On Royal Assent it will change the law so that as of January 1, 2018, age is a protected ground of discrimination relating to goods, services, accommodation or facilities and tenancy. Exceptions remain and I encourage you to read the Alberta Human Rights Commission bulletin for interesting details and a summary of the amendments.

CBC covered the story that led to the amendments – a Queen’s Bench application by the Elder Advocates of Alberta Society that was granted by Belzil, J. on January 6, 2017.

It is interesting . . . [more]

By Daniel Standing LL.B., Editor, First Reference Inc.

When an employee who is off work due to a disability is terminated, there are typically red flags signaling a potential situation of discrimination. The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal’s decision in Fick v Loomis Express, 2022 CHRT 2 (CanLII) confirms that it is not always as it seems. Despite bad first appearances, the employer’s actions can be found legitimate, countering a claim of discrimination. . . . [more]

It’s really not shocking for anyone who pays attention to the practice of law, but a powerful piece in The Globe recently highlighted the gender inequities in Canadian law firms. Lawyers in all practices and of all genders nodded their heads, knowingly.

The article describes the calls for change that have been in place since 1996, “when women started filling up more than half the seats in law schools across the country.” But all the partners’ horses, and and the partners’ consultants, couldn’t figure out why women weren’t making partner in comparable numbers, or were making almost 25% less at . . . [more]

Written by Daniel Standing LL.B., Editor, First Reference Inc.

In many cases, the choice of when to retire is based on a variety of factors, including lifestyle, priorities and other circumstances. Sometimes the decision to stop working is an easy one, while others prefer to continue working as long as possible. But what happens when an employee’s retirement is not a choice but is a requirement of his or her pension plan? Is it discriminatory? This issue came before the Human Rights Tribunal of Alberta in Aziz v Calgary Firefighters Association, 2020 AHRC 40 when a firefighter nearing the . . . [more]

Written by Lewis Waring, Paralegal, Editor at First Reference

In Moore v Ferro (Estate), 2019 HRTO 526 (CanLII) (“Moore”), a British-trained lawyer licensed to practice in Ontario applied for a position at a law firm and was denied. The applicant responded to his denial by claiming that the law firm had discriminated against him in violation of the Ontario Human Rights Code.

The nature of that discrimination, the applicant claimed, was based upon his race and age and was demonstrated by the firm’s interview procedure, refusal to hire him and the language used in their correspondence with him. . . . [more]

In a recent Ontario Superior Court case, the unofficial rule of thumb of one month of notice per year of service with an upper limit of about 24 months was set aside when an employee was awarded a 30-month notice period. The Court also held that it would have awarded more, 36 months in fact, if the employee had asked for it.

The Court stated in the decision that,

[30] As a general principle, 24 months has been identified as the maximum notice period in most cases.

The number of workers over the age of 65 has risen significantly in recent years. The increasing number of older employees who choose to remain in the workplace, combined with the elimination of mandatory retirement across Canada, has put into question the issue of 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. However, providing benefits to employees past the age of 65 can be difficult because insurers either will not provide the coverage, . . . [more]

Each Wednesday we tell you which three English-language cases and which French-language case have been the most viewed* on CanLII and we give you a small sense of what the cases are about.

For this last week:

1. Talos v. Grand Erie District School Board, 2018 HRTO 680

[16] It is evident that employees who work after age 65 provide the same labour as they did when they were 64 years of age and would normally be guaranteed equal compensation, including access to benefits. Absent the impugned provision, a benefit differential that is only explained by the age of . . . [more]