Client Update: Where there’s smoke, there may be coverage: an insurer’s obligation to indemnify for medical cannabis
Legal cannabis will have numerous implications for insurers. The federal Cannabis Act (discussed here), the provincial acts (discussed here) and the regulations (discussed here) are all going to add layers of nuance to the governance of cannabis in Canada.
Auto insurers will be affected by the uncertainty created by impaired driving, as we discuss in our article: Driving high – the future is hazy for Canadian automobile insurers once cannabis goes legal. However, other insurers, who deal with health and benefits, are already grappling with medical cannabis and coverage – as is discussed in the Nova Scotia Human Rights Tribunal decision of Skinner v Board of Trustees of the Canadian Elevator Industry Welfare Trust Fund, 2017 CanLII 3240 (NS HRC) (“Skinner“).
Skinner: what is it about?
Gordon “Wayne” Skinner worked for ThyssenKrupp Elevator Canada when he was injured on the job in a motor vehicle accident in 2010. After two other medications became ineffective in managing his symptoms, Mr. Skinner obtained a medical cannabis license in 2012. Once he exhausted his employer’s insurer’s coverage limit of $25,000, Mr. Skinner turned to the Canadian Elevator Industry Welfare Trust Plan (the “Trust”) to cover his medicinal cannabis. The Trust provides health and related benefits for employees and former employees working in the unionized sector of the Canadian elevator industry.
The Trust denied the request for coverage, taking the position that (a) medical cannabis had not been approved by Health Canada and, consequently, lacked a drug identification number (“DIN”); and, (b) Skinner’s injuries were the result of an otherwise compensable workplace accident and therefore ought to be covered by the provincial Medicare plan.
Mr. Skinner complained to the Nova Scotia Human Rights Commission (the “Commission”). Earlier this year, a Board of Inquiry (“BOI”) issued its decision. The BOI concluded that denial of coverage for medical cannabis amounted to unjustifiable discrimination and ordered the Trust to reimburse certain expenses.
Skinner provides guidance on how to draft language limiting coverage for medical cannabis within an insurance or group benefits policy. However, the impact of this decision may change, as an appeal is presently slated for October 2017 before the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal.
Skinner’s implications for insurers and coverage providers (at present)
1. Medical cannabis should be explicitly excluded from coverage, if that is the intent.
In Skinner, the BOI concluded it was not necessary that cannabis be assigned a DIN as a condition for coverage. Since the Trust’s plan in Skinner included coverage for both “drugs” and “medicines”, the BOI concluded it was prima facie discriminatory to deny coverage for medical cannabis as opposed to other medicines (thereby imposing a burden on the Trust to prove that the denial was justifiable).
2. Coverage for medical cannabis cannot be denied arbitrarily. Insurers or benefit providers seeking to deny coverage must be able to justify that decision with evidence.
In Skinner, there was little evidence presented that showed coverage of medicinal cannabis would have rendered the Trust financially unviable. The Trust argued it would cost $60 per day to provide the medicinal cannabis to Mr. Skinner when justifying the alleged discrimination and denial of coverage. The BOI concluded that absent any context or comparators, the $60 daily expense to the Trust was not prohibitive to providing coverage to Mr. Skinner. Furthermore, the BOI decided that exclusion of medical cannabis was contrary to the purpose of the Trust’s plan, which was to maximize the benefits for members without compromising the financial viability of the trust funds supporting the plan.
Skinner‘s future implications
Two items will have direct impacts on Skinner‘s continuing utility as a precedent in this area:
1. Legalized recreational cannabis, which is fast approaching, will require insurers and benefit providers to think critically about the relationship and overlap between recreational and medicinal cannabis when drafting coverage provisions; and,
2. The results of the October, 2017 appeal before the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal, which we will be following closely.
Level Chan and Dante Manna As 2018 comes to an end, we countdown some pension and employee benefits developments in the last year that we anticipate may lead to developments in 2019. Discrimination in benefits…Read More
Kevin Landry The first look at regulations for cannabis edibles, extracts and topicals has arrived. The Federal Government has opened a 60-day consultation period respecting the strict regulation of additional cannabis products. Notice of the consultation was accompanied…Read More
Erin Best and Kara Harrington “This case is about pain, how it was caused, by what accident and the opinions of dueling experts.”¹ “In this case, like so many, the assessment of the evidence depends…Read More
Jonathan Coady and Michael Fleischmann Overview Once again, the time has come to review the year that was and to chart the course for the year ahead. For municipalities, developers and planning professionals throughout Prince…Read More
Following the various Stakeholder Consultations (which Stewart McKelvey participated in on behalf of Nova Scotia Employers), the Government has changed the Labour Standards Code Regulations effective January 1, 2019 to: a) provide for up to…Read More
Version française à suivre Sara Espinal Henao Canada has expanded its permanent and temporary immigration requirements to include biometrics – the measurement of unique physical characteristics, such as fingerprints and facial features. The new requirements,…Read More
Many businesses rely on trade-mark, copyright, and patent law for the protection of their intellectual property (IP). The Federal Government recently proposed changes to IP laws, which may impact your business. Bill C-86, Budget Implementation Act,…Read More
Julia Parent and David Wedlake (special thanks to Graham Haynes for his assistance) In a rare decision from the bench, the Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC”) allowed the appeal of Callidus Capital Corporation in the matter…Read More
Mark Tector and Killian McParland ‘Tis again the season for the company holiday party. And while the party planners are starting to break out the eggnog, there are some lessons learned from seasons past to…Read More
Mark Tector and Richard Jordan The Nova Scotia Occupational Health and Safety Act (the “Act”) provides that “contractors” and “constructors” have similar, but not identical, responsibilities, with a “Constructor” having greater authority and more responsibility for the health and…Read More