Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario Decision on Post Age 65 Benefits Raises Important Issues

The recent decision from the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (Tribunal) in Talos v. Grand Erie District School Board raises important issues about the provision of benefits to employees aged 65 and older. In Talos, the Tribunal found that section 25 (2.1) of the Ontario Human Rights Code (Code), which effectively permits employers to cease providing employees with benefits at age 65, is unconstitutional. More specifically, the Tribunal held that this age-based “carve out” from Code protection violates the equality guarantee under section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Charter) and cannot be justified under section 1 of the Charter as a reasonable limit.

The Aging Workforce: What You Need to Know

Agenda In the post-mandatory retirement world, it is not surprising that recent statistics show that the number of individuals over the age of 55 choosing to remain in the workforce is on the rise. As a result, employers are faced with dealing with an aging workforce which presents challenges not previously encountered. The aging workforce…

City Did Not Breach Duty to Accommodate When it Declined Firefighters’ Request for Exception to Mandatory Retirement Policy

In a recent decision, Corrigan v. Corporation of the City of Mississauga [1], the Divisional Court dismissed an application for judicial review of a decision of the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (the “Tribunal”), which found that the City of Mississauga did not breach its procedural duty to accommodate when it declined to accommodate suppression…

Mandatory Retirement Upheld for Suppression Fire Fighters: HRTO Clarifies Accommodation Obligations

In its recent decision, Corrigan v. Mississauga (City), the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (“HRTO”) considered whether a municipal employer had a positive obligation to consider requests for individual exceptions to the mandatory retirement policy of age 60 for suppression fire fighters and to work with those fire fighters to develop a medical fitness testing…

Stephen Shamie Quoted in Queen’s Law Reports

Hicks Morley’s managing partner Stephen Shamie was quoted in the 2011 edition of Queen’s Law Reports. In an article entitled “Centre for Law in the Contemporary Workplace,” Stephen comments on the end of mandatory retirement and identifies that when challenges arise in areas where mandatory retirement can be justified, such as jobs where strenuous physical…

Bill 181, Mandatory Retirement Legislation For Firefighters, Receives Royal Assent

On June 1, 2011, Bill 181, Fire Protection and Prevention Amendment Act, 2011, received Royal Assent. As previously reported, Bill 181 amends the Fire Protection and Prevention Act, 1997 to provide for the mandatory retirement at age 60 of firefighters regularly assigned to fire suppression duties, in certain circumstances, and impose a duty of fair…

Bill 181, Mandatory Retirement Legislation For Firefighters, Passes Third Reading as Amended

On May 31, 2011, Bill 181, the Fire Protection and Prevention Amendment Act, 2011, passed at Third Reading as amended and is expected to receive Royal Assent shortly. As previously reported, Bill 181 amends the Fire Protection and Prevention Act, 1997 to provide for the mandatory retirement at age 60 of firefighters regularly assigned to…

Mandatory Retirement Legislation For Firefighters Ordered for Third Reading as Amended

On May 19, 2011, Bill 181, the Fire Protection and Prevention Amendment Act, 2011, was ordered for Third Reading after being reported as amended by the Standing Committee on General Government. The Committee amended the “Reasonable Accommodation” provision found in section 2 of the Bill to provide as follows: 53.1(4) A firefighter shall not be…