A New Brunswick worker whose long-term disability benefits were discontinued when he turned 65 is not a victim of age discrimination, according to the New Brunswick Court of Appeal.
Ronald Laronde received disability benefits from the New Brunswick Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Commission and its predecessor, the Workers Compensation Board, since he stopped working in 1990 due to a workplace injury. As per legislation, the commission stopped payments when Laronde turned 65.
Laronde was also receiving monthly payments from the Canada Pension and Old Age Security benefits. He claimed this was age discrimination under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms but his complaint was dismissed by the commission’s Appeals Tribunal.
On appeal, the court agreed the cessation of disability benefits makes a distinction between those older and younger than 65. However, it noted this does not necessarily create the “substantive inequality” which the charter is meant to protect against.
Since 1982, compensation benefits have been integrated into existing social programs to avoid “double indemnity” and ensure benefits were a realistic replacement of lost wages for disabled workers.
Because wages end upon retirement, it was legislated that compensation benefits would also end. Age 65 was chosen since that is the age at which “pension benefits would normally become available.”
Disabled workers do receive an annuity after 65 which serves as a “top-up” to other pension benefits in order to make up for pension contributions the worker could have made if working. The court noted although wage replacement benefits stop at 65, medical benefits continue. With the annuity top-up accompanying government-paid pension benefits, disabled workers over 65 are equalized with healthy workers who earn wages until 65 and receive pensions after. The compensation program is “tailored to the reality of (those 65 and over).”
The court could find no evidence Laronde’s “human dignity” was impaired by the cessation of compensation benefits nor was there any age discrimination.
“The distinction drawn between injured workers age 65 and over and those who are younger is not one that treats the older worker in a way that is disrespectful of their human dignity,” the court said. “Benefits seek only to replace lost wages due to a work-related injury and cannot be equated with an employer-funded pension plan for injured workers.” See Laronde v. New Brunswick (Workplace Health, Safety & Compensation Commission), 2007 CarswellNB 45 (N.B. C.A.).
Laronde was also receiving monthly payments from the Canada Pension and Old Age Security benefits. He claimed this was age discrimination under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms but his complaint was dismissed by the commission’s Appeals Tribunal.
On appeal, the court agreed the cessation of disability benefits makes a distinction between those older and younger than 65. However, it noted this does not necessarily create the “substantive inequality” which the charter is meant to protect against.
Since 1982, compensation benefits have been integrated into existing social programs to avoid “double indemnity” and ensure benefits were a realistic replacement of lost wages for disabled workers.
Because wages end upon retirement, it was legislated that compensation benefits would also end. Age 65 was chosen since that is the age at which “pension benefits would normally become available.”
Disabled workers do receive an annuity after 65 which serves as a “top-up” to other pension benefits in order to make up for pension contributions the worker could have made if working. The court noted although wage replacement benefits stop at 65, medical benefits continue. With the annuity top-up accompanying government-paid pension benefits, disabled workers over 65 are equalized with healthy workers who earn wages until 65 and receive pensions after. The compensation program is “tailored to the reality of (those 65 and over).”
The court could find no evidence Laronde’s “human dignity” was impaired by the cessation of compensation benefits nor was there any age discrimination.
“The distinction drawn between injured workers age 65 and over and those who are younger is not one that treats the older worker in a way that is disrespectful of their human dignity,” the court said. “Benefits seek only to replace lost wages due to a work-related injury and cannot be equated with an employer-funded pension plan for injured workers.” See Laronde v. New Brunswick (Workplace Health, Safety & Compensation Commission), 2007 CarswellNB 45 (N.B. C.A.).
