2 total
Age discrimination claims regarding benefits for employees over 65 dismissed; harassment claims require further particulars.
The applicant, a police officer working past age 65, alleged age discrimination regarding the loss of group health benefits, reduction in life insurance, and pressure to retire.
Following a summary hearing, the Tribunal dismissed the allegations concerning the benefit and insurance plans, finding that the differential treatment for employees over 65 complies with the Employment Standards Act and is therefore protected by s. 25(2.1) of the Human Rights Code.
The Tribunal declined to dismiss the allegations of age-related harassment and pressure to retire, directing the applicant to provide further particulars.
The City of Hamilton and the Hamilton Police Association were removed as respondents.
Request to amend application granted for particulars but denied for adding unnotified respondents.
The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to amend her human rights application to provide more particulars and to name the Hanover Police Service and the Chief of Police as respondents alongside the Hanover Police Services Board.
The Board consented to the addition of particulars but noted it did not represent the Service or the Chief.
The Tribunal granted the request to add particulars but declined to change the name of the respondent in the style of cause, as the Board had already accepted responsibility as the employer and the other entities had not been given notice.
