One Bill 148 amendment that could hit businesses hard is the tightening of the law around who is an employee. In the event of a misclassification — an independent contractor who should be classified as an employee — the onus is now on the business to prove the individual is NOT an employee.

Why Use Independent Contractors vs. Employees and What’s the Difference?

Often businesses use a blend of workers. Employees can be hired for either fixed or indefinite terms, and independent contractors or consultants can be retained to provide services on a specific project without becoming employees. There are practical differences between these two categories for the worker and the business. The following chart highlights some of them.

The Canadian government’s legalization of recreational cannabis has again lately been a hot news item. Initially, there were some reports that recreational cannabis was to be legalized this week, by July 1, 2018. For a variety of reasons that date has been pushed back. Legalization is now set for October 17, 2018.

The Ontario Human Rights Tribunal (HRTO) has issued an important decision on age discrimination and benefits. In Talos v. Grand Erie District School Board, 2018 HRTO 680 the HRTO found that terminating an employee’s health, dental and life insurance benefits at the age of 65 constitutes age discrimination and is a violation of the Ontario Human Rights Code (the Code).

This is a big deal in the human rights world because s.25(2.1) of the Code actually permits differential treatment in connection with benefits at age 65. The HRTO has now found that this section violates the equality rights guaranteed to all Canadians by section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Mr. Talos, the applicant in this case, worked as a teacher. Even though he continued working past age 65, the group health benefits and life insurance he had previously received were terminated when he turned 65. The Grand Erie District School Board relied on s.25(2.1) of the Code to justify terminating his benefits.

In deciding that s.25(2.1) violated the Charter the HTRO decided that, based on evidence from various expert witnesses, it was not cost prohibitive to continue benefits for employees beyond age 65.

Message for Employers

Practically this means that it is now a violation of the Code for employers to terminate the health, dental and life insurance benefits for employees at age 65. Prior to this decision this practice was permitted and common.

Employers who have benefits plans and policies that terminate benefits for employees at age 65 should consider extending these benefits. Continuation of a policy that terminates at 65 will invite discrimination claims.

Given that this is a big shift in the law, we expect the decision will be judicially reviewed by a court. We will keep you up to date on developments. For more on benefits, check out our past posts on this topic. If you’d like help sorting out a benefits issue in your workplace, get in touch, we are happy to help.

Remembrance Day in the Spring? With long weekends on the horizon as summer finally rolls in, we turn our minds to the holiday that only some of us get off – Remembrance Day.

The infographic below highlights some of the key points of Bill 148. For a detailed explanation, please see our previous post entitled Everything you ever wanted to know about Bill 148 but were too afraid to ask, or any of our posts on the topic of Bill 148.