the option to retire as early as age 58, the operation of the Collective Agreement does
not encourage employees to leave at age 65 because it supports workers who are 65+
with a host of health related benefits that have no age limit attached. For example,
Extended Health Insurance is continued and STD payments are available for 52 weeks.
Therefore, it cannot be said that this workplace, the termination of LTD at age 65 or the
Collective Agreement perpetuate negative stereotypes about aging. Instead, it offers
alternative protections to employees.
The Union pointed out that the loss of LTD coverage at age 65 may result in employees
feeling compelled to retire if they are suffering from a long term illness or disability. While
there is no evidence that this has ever happened, such evidence was not necessary.
Given that this was a hearing into policy grievances, the conclusion can be inferred.
Nevertheless, the situation of such employees must be viewed together with the actual
purpose of an LTD plan. LTD insurance exists to provide income replacement. However,
unlike pensions, LTD is not designed as a lifetime income stream. It is designed to
replace income until a person recovers or reaches pensionable age. There is no evidence
of any LTD plan with no age cap. The benefits of LTD coverage have to be viewed in the
context of these employees also having access to an unreduced pension as early as age
58 or by the time they are 65, unless they have short service. The suite of health and
welfare benefits to workers beyond age 65 provides them with the opportunity to transition
from LTD to a secure pension income that may even be greater than what would be
available under a theoretical extended LTD plan. Therefore, they are not significantly
disadvantaged by being cut off from LTD coverage. It is true that this may result in some
employees deciding to retire sooner than they may have anticipated. That is not a trifling
consideration. However, their dignity is protected by their having access to their pension
income. The combination of STD, LTD and pension benefits creates a package that meets
the needs of workers for income security as they age, thereby satisfying the Supreme
Court’s expectations as set out in Withler, supra.
The Talos decision did not consider the claimant’s ability to draw on OAS and CPP or
personal savings as being relevant to Mr. Talos’ Charter claim, [see para. 229]. That
made sense given that he was seeking continuation of health care benefits for his
family. It was the suite of those particular benefits that mattered to Mr. Talos, not
whether he had an income from a different source. In contrast, the availability of CPP
and OAS at 65 is a relevant factor in considering the general reasonableness or
justification of having an LTD plan’s coverage cease at 65 in this case when other
benefits remain in place for those who are working and there is an alternate source of
pension income for people as early as 58 to transition into for income security. That is
another reason why this case is different from Talos.
Further, the facts of this case are more akin with the facts in Bentley, supra, than the facts
in the Talos case. In Bentley, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal (CHRT) dealt
directly with the effect of cutting off LTD coverage for pilots when they became eligible
for an unreduced pension. Mr. Bentley had alleged discrimination on the basis of age.
Like Mr. Talos, Mr. Bentley claimed that the legislation creating exemptions for age-
based differentiation in pension and LTD coverage violated s. 15(1) of the Charter. The
36