Arbitrator rejects union's bid to extend benefits beyond 65, and Charter and human rights challenge over age cut-off moves forward
March 11, 2025
An arbitrator concluded that a union’s contractual interpretation claim to extend member benefits beyond the age of 65 was barred by the principle of estoppel.
Although the collective agreement between the parties made no reference to any age limit for weekly indemnity benefits or the major medical, dental and vision care plans, the arbitrator found that the age 65 cut-off was allowed because of a provision in the agreement stating that entitlement to these benefits was to be “decided by the insurance carrier, based on the provisions of the policy.”
When it came to coverage for life insurance, accidental death and dismemberment, Ontario Hospital Insurance (OHIP) Ward Coverage and Physiotherapy, the arbitrator concluded that the collective agreement did not support any age cap, since there was no such reference to the insurance carrier’s policy book.
However, the arbitrator went on to rule that the union could not enforce the interpretation regarding these benefits during the life of the collective agreement, as it had failed to give the employer notice of its intention to insist on a contractual right to benefits beyond age 65.
Given the union’s longstanding awareness of the employer’s application of the age cap and its lack of objection, the employer was entitled to assume the union had accepted this interpretation. As a result, the arbitrator found that the principle of estoppel applied.
Still, the union will be able to proceed with a challenge alleging the age cut-off is contrary to the Charter and the Ontario Human Rights Code.
Click on more information below to read the arbitrator’s decision:
