Client Update: Benefits plans really do not have to cover the sun, the moon and the stars (and medical cannabis)
Rick Dunlop and Richard Jordan
Employers, and benefit providers on their behalf, make policy decisions as to what drugs or benefits (including monetary limits) will be covered by benefit plans. The Board of Trustees in Board of Trustees of the Canadian Elevator Industry Welfare Trust Fund v. Skinner, 2018 NSCA 31 made the policy decision not to cover medical cannabis. The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal found that this policy decision was not discriminatory and set aside a Nova Scotia Human Rights Board of Inquiry (“BOI”) decision (discussed here), which found that the decision was discriminatory.
Benefit plans are limited and that’s OK
Stewart McKelvey represented the intervenor, Nova Scotia Private Sector Employers Roundtable (“Employers Roundtable”), in support of the Trustees. The Court recognized the Employers Roundtable’s fundamental concern that the BOI decision meant that “every denial of health benefits could trigger a human rights review with attendant obligations to justify or accommodate”. The Court accepted the Employers Roundtable’s submission that a benefit limitation is not prima facie discriminatory. The Court eloquently explains:
Benefit plans are necessarily limited in many ways. In this case, Mr. Skinner invokes one of those limits to claim prima facie discrimination. The logical consequence of his argument is that every under-inclusive benefits plan results in prima facie discrimination which the plan administrators must justify if a physician prescribes the medication because approved drugs are ineffective. Every request for medication not covered under a plan could be subject to a human rights complaint and require justification for refusal. Human rights boards would become arbiters of private benefit plans. Scarce plan resources would be consumed with justification hearings because justification would usually turn on the particular circumstances of each case.
* * *
Whether to provide a particular benefit, in this case a particular drug, could be based on many factors. Disability would be common to all applicants, because it is a prerequisite to any beneficial entitlement. That alone cannot make it a factor in the decision. As the Employers Roundtable argues, the Board’s recognition that Welfare Plans need not cover the ‘sun, the moon and the stars’ is an implicit admission that non-coverage decisions – and their effects – do not necessarily make disability a factor in those non-coverage decisions. But the Board’s decision side-steps the third Moore criterion so that the existence of a disability by default makes disability a factor.
A prima facie case for discrimination must be a connection between the disability and denial of medical cannabis coverage
The Court appropriately recognized Mr. Skinner’s sympathetic circumstances, but faulted the BOI for its legal analysis relating to the third part of the prima facie case for discrimination. This part of the test required Mr. Skinner to show that there was a connection between his disability and the Trustees’ decision not to cover medical cannabis.
The mere existence of a disability does not establish a connection. The BOI’s conclusion that “because Mr. Skinner was denied coverage, his disability was a factor in the decision” was flawed. The Court reasoned that it “is not enough to conclude that Mr. Skinner experienced an adverse effect arising from non-coverage of medical marijuana…It is necessary to link that exclusion with Mr. Skinner’s membership in an enumerated group…”
Sympathetic personal circumstances do not override statutory criteria
The Court agreed with the BOI’s declaration that benefit plans “need not cover ‘the sun, the moon and the stars…”, but that the BOI based its decision “on Mr. Skinner’s personal needs rather than the statutory criteria.” The statutory criteria required Mr. Skinner to establish a connection between his disability and the Trustees’ decision not to cover medical cannabis. The Court concluded that no such connection could reasonably be made.
Workers’ Compensation Appeal
This decision comes a month after the Court of Appeal’s decision in Skinner v. Nova Scotia (Workers’ Compensation Appeals Tribunal), 2018 NSCA 23. In that case, the Court of Appeal upheld a Workers’ Compensation Appeals Tribunal decision which found that Workers’ Compensation Board (“WCB”) did not have to pay Mr. Skinner’s medical cannabis expenses under the Board’s medical aid assistance program.
Peter McLellan, QC, Rick Dunlop and Richard Jordan successfully represented the Employers Roundtable
Rory Rogers, QC, successfully represented the WCB
Archive
We are pleased to present the second installment of Beyond the border, a quarterly publication aimed at providing the latest information to clients about new programs and other immigration-related information that may be pertinent to employers…
Read MoreIn preparing for the 2020 Proxy season, you should be aware of some of the regulatory developments and institutional investor guidance that is likely to impact disclosure to, and interactions with, shareholders. This update highlights…
Read MoreJennifer Thompson Nova Scotia’s Premier’s Office has today made an unexpected announcement regarding several changes to be made to Nova Scotia’s minimum wage and partial hours rules, with effect from April 1, 2020. Additional increase…
Read MoreKathleen Leighton For individuals whose Permanent Resident Cards (“PR Cards”) have expired, it can be a time of panic. “Did I lose my status?”, “Do I have to leave the country immediately?”, “Can I still…
Read MoreDante Manna The Nova Scotia Government is seeking input by way of public survey or written submissions on proposed changes to family property law that would, among other things, affect pension division between former spouses.…
Read MoreAtlantic Canada experienced a number of legal developments in 2019 that regional employers should be aware of as they plan for the year ahead. Click the image below to read our 2019 year in review,…
Read MoreG. Grant Machum & Richard Jordan On December 20, 2019, the Supreme Court of Canada released its decision in Canada Post Corporation v. Canadian Union of Postal Workers, 2019 SCC 67. This case involved a…
Read MoreLevel Chan and Dante Manna In this update we provide what we see on the employee benefits and pension plans legal horizon in 2020 and beyond, along with a review of some highlights from 2019.…
Read MoreJennifer Thompson The Accessible Canada Act (“Act”) came into force on July 11, 2019, ushering in the start of a march towards a Canada without barriers for persons with disabilities. While the Act only applies…
Read MoreKathleen Leighton If you employ an individual who holds a work permit to authorize their work in Canada, you likely have various obligations to adhere to and can face significant consequences if your business is…
Read More