Court of Appeal

Judge:

The Honourable Justice M. Jill Hamilton

Appeal Heard:

February 5, 2015, in Halifax, Nova Scotia

Subject:

Bona fide pension plan within the meaning of s. 6(g) of the Human Rights Act (HRA), R.S.N.S. 1989, c. 214

Summary:

In anticipation of the implementation of changes to s. 6 of the HRA, narrowing the exceptions to the age discrimination provisions of s. 5(1), the Cape Breton Regional Municipality (CBRM) amended its defined contribution pension plan, DCP, to require employees who were members of that plan to retire at age 65, as had been the practice policy up until that time for all employees.  The motivation for the amendment to the DCP was to maintain equal treatment for all CBRM employees.  The appellant, a member of the DCP, was mandatorily retired at age 65.  He complained that he was discriminated against on the basis of age.  A Human Rights Board (Board) dismissed his complaint.

Issues:

Did the Board apply the correct legal principles and reasonably interpret s. 6(g) of the HRA, in determining that the DCP was a bona fide pension plan, exempt from the age discrimination provisions in s. 5(1) of the HRA?

Result:

Appeal dismissed.  The Board applied the legal principles set out in New Brunswick (Human Rights Commission) v. Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan Inc., 2008 SCC 45 and reasonably interpreted s. 6(g) of the HRA.  Its decision has a reasoning path that is intelligible and transparent and its conclusion is within the range of possible, accountable outcomes given the facts and the law.