/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/64553364/1653593.0.jpg "preferential treatment in the workplace")
Section 18 of the Code allows certain types of organizations to limit participation or membership based on Code grounds including age:ġ8. The OHRC’s Guidelines on Special Programs provide detailed information on how a special program can be planned, implemented and monitored.
A failure to do so, can lead to successful challenge of the program and a finding that it is discriminatory. It is important that special programs be designed so that restrictions within the program, for example with regard to the age of those eligible to participate, are rationally connected to the objective of the program.
This allows preferential treatment or programs aimed only at older persons, even if they have not yet reached the age of 65, if the purpose of the program is to relieve hardship or economic disadvantage or to assist disadvantaged persons or groups to achieve equal opportunity. This permits seniors’ discounts, seniors-only housing and other benefits aimed only at persons over 65.Īs well, section 14 of the Code permits the use of special programs in all social areas. A right under Part I to non-discrimination because of age is not infringed where an age of sixty-five years or over is a requirement, qualification or consideration for preferential treatment. The Code expressly provides for the preference of persons over 65 years of age:ġ5. In certain circumstances, the Code permits programs and benefits aimed at a specific age group. 4.2 Age 65 benefits, special programs and special interest organizations The law did not stereotype, exclude, devalue or demean adults of the claimant’s age. The Court found that persons under age 45 have not historically been subjected to discrimination and that younger persons do not face the same barriers to long-term labour force participation that the benefit was designed to address.
PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT IN THE WORKPLACE FULL
Under the pension scheme, full benefits were paid to surviving spouses over the age of 45, partial benefits were paid to those between 35 and 45 and no benefits were available to surviving spouses under age 35. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) the Supreme Court of Canada applied these three inquiries to conclude that even though the claimant was not entitled to a survivor’s pension when her spouse died simply because of her age (she was 30), it was not discrimination under s. Does the differential treatment amount to discrimination because it makes distinctions that are offensive to human dignity?
(3) Discrimination in a substantive senseįinally, does the differential treatment discriminate by imposing a burden upon, or withholding a benefit from, an individual? The discrimination might be based on stereotypes of a presumed group or personal characteristics, or might perpetuate or promote the view that an individual is less capable or worthy of recognition or value as a human being or as a member of Canadian society who is equally deserving of concern, respect and consideration. Was the differential treatment based on an enumerated ground, in this case age? Was there substantively differential treatment, either because of a distinction, exclusion or preference, or because of a failure to take into account the individual’s already disadvantaged position within Canadian society? 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (the “ Charter”), the Supreme Court of Canada has offered the following three broad inquiries as a tool for determining whether discrimination has occurred: In the context of equality claims under s. For example, discounts on services for persons under 25 or over 55, retirement schemes that are based on a minimum age combined with years of service and measures aimed at facilitating the transition from full-time employment to retirement would not likely be considered discrimination within the meaning of human rights law and policy. Some age-based criteria or qualifications are not based on stereotypes, are not offensive to human dignity and do not target a historically disadvantaged age group. However, in other cases, it may be necessary to consider whether the treatment can be said to constitute “discrimination” in the sense of being something that is protected by human rights law. In many cases, differential treatment because of age will clearly be discriminatory. The purpose of anti-discrimination laws is to prevent the violation of human dignity and freedom through the imposition of disadvantage, stereotyping, or political or social prejudice. 4.1 When is differential treatment discriminatory?
0 kommentar(er)
