A credit card's insurance allegedly discriminated based on age
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice has quashed the decision of an Ontario Human Rights Tribunal adjudicator, finding that the adjudicator made a fundamental error regarding the burden of proof.
In Opara v. Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, 2023 ONSC 6594, Michael Opara filed a complaint with the Human Rights Tribunal, alleging that the travel insurance included in his credit card benefits discriminated based on age. The tribunal dismissed his complaint after a preliminary hearing, finding that s. 22 of the Human Rights Code allows differentiation in insurance based on reasonable and bona fide grounds.
Opara raised the matter to the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. The court noted that the adjudicator wrongly placed the burden of proof on Opara.
Opara obtained a credit card through Meridian Credit Union. Collabria Financial Services owned the licence to provide a Visa credit card, Meridian made the card available to its members, and Desjardins Financial Security Life Assurance Company underwrote the associated insurance products. The credit card offered travel insurance, but there were limitations on coverage for people over 65 years of age.
After the preliminary hearing, the adjudicator ruled that "the provisions of the travel insurance contract fall within the scope of s. 22 of the Code and the applicant's rights to equal treatment have therefore not been infringed." The court noted that the reasons for the decision contained no further analysis.
The adjudicator also denied a request for consideration, stating that the applicant failed to discharge his burden of proving that s. 22 of the Human Rights Code does not apply to him.
The court clarified that the onus regarding s. 22 was on the respondent seeking to benefit from that section. The court explained that the adjudicator's error was compounded by the cursory nature of his reasons for the decision. The court emphasized that it is generally not good practice to simply adopt one side's submissions without more, although not always fatal.
The court concluded that the adjudicator made a fundamental error. Accordingly, the court quashed the adjudicator's decision and directed the case to be heard by a different adjudicator.
