The British Columbia Court of Appeal has unanimously held that the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal did not have jurisdiction under the BC Human Rights Code to hear an age discrimination complaint filed by a lawyer against a national law firm – a limited liability partnership – in which he was an equity partner.

As part of the law firm’s partnership agreement, there was a mandatory retirement age of 65. The partner filed a human rights complaint on the basis that he was discriminated against by the partnership on the basis of age. The Court of Appeal rejected the argument that a partner could be “employed” for the purposes of the BC Human Rights Code and found that there was no “employment” relationship between the law firm and its partner.  As such, the partner could not advance a human rights complaint that he was discriminated against in “employment”.

The Court of Appeal set aside the decision of the Human Rights Tribunal and the BC Supreme Court, both of which had held that the partner was employed, for the purposes of the BC Human Rights Code, and thus was entitled to advance the age discrimination complaint.

A copy of the decision can be found here: http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/CA/12/03/2012BCCA0313.htm

Bill 34 has been introduced in the British Columbia legislature to establish, for most claims, a basic limitation period of 2 years from the date of discovery of the claim. Currently wrongful dismissal claims in B.C. have a 6 year limitation period.

The general minimum wage in British Columbia will be increasing from $9.50 per hour to $10.25 per hour on May 1, 2012.

La Cour suprême du Canada a accepté d’entendre l’affaire Richard Waterman c. IBM Canada Limitée, 2011 BCCA 337 portant sur la question à savoir si le montant des prestations de retraite d’un régime capitalisé par l’employeur qu’un employé a reçues après la cessation d’emploi aurait dû être déduit du montant des dommages-intérêts qu’il a obtenus pour congédiement injustifié. La Cour suprême et la Cour d’appel de la Colombie-Britannique ont toutes deux conclu que les prestations de retraite versées pendant la période de préavis ne devaient pas être déduites du montant des dommages-intérêts accordés par le tribunal.

The Supreme Court of Canada has granted leave to hear the case of Richard Waterman v. IBM Canada Limited,2011 BCCA 337, on whether employer-funded pension benefits that were paid after an employee’s termination should have been deducted from damages resulting from a wrongful dismissal. Both the British Columbia Supreme Court and Court of Appeal held that pension benefits paid during the notice period were not to be deducted from the damages awarded by the Court.

A recent Supreme Court of British Columbia case raises the issue of whether employers may unilaterally change the terms of retiree benefits for already-retired employees.

In Lacey v. Weyerhaeuser Company Limited, five already-retired salaried employees of Weyerhaeuser (and its predecessor company) had a benefits package which included specific retirement benefits coverage paid for by the employer. On January 1, 2010, the employer unilaterally cut its contribution to the cost of their benefits coverage by 50%, and announced that the retirees would be responsible for bearing any future cost increases. The employer stated that these changes were being done to sustain the viability and affordability of the retiree plans and that the employer had the discretion as to whether to provide retirement health benefits.  The five retirees sued.

The affected retirees did not have a written employment agreement setting out what benefits coverage would be provided after retirement.  The Court, after reviewing the company policies and written and oral communications between management and the retirees, concluded that retiree health benefits were intended as a form of deferred compensation and not a gratuitous payment.  Effectively, the employer’s promise to provide the retiree benefits coverage created a contractual obligation to continue to provide that coverage to employees who had already retired. Based on the contractual language in force at the applicable time, the right to make changes to the retirees’ benefits did not extend to changing the terms of an employee’s retirement health coverage after the date of retirement. As such, the retirees were entitled to the extended health benefits coverage as it existed on their date of retirement, without alteration to the scope of coverage, coverage limits or deductibles, and all at the employer’s expense.

A copy of the decision can be found here: http://courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/SC/12/03/2012BCSC0353.htm. A notice of appeal was filed on April 2, 2012.