Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T21:58:46.290Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Insurance, Human Rights, and Equality Rights in Canada: When is Discrimination “Reasonable?”*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 November 2009

Thomas Flanagan
Thomas Flanagan
Affiliation:
University of Calgary
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Insurance classifications that rely on demographic information are often accused of being discriminatory. There is a strong movement, based on human rights legislation as well as the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, to abolish them. However, analysis shows that the common criticisms of these classifications are self-contradictory and also apply in large measure to the behavioural criteria most commonly proposed as substitutes. Whether current practices are “reasonable” in the sense of the Charter will be an important question for determining the scope of the “equality rights” of section 15 of the Charter.

Résumé

On reproche souvent aux classifications d'assurance fondées sur des renseignements é caractère démographique d'être discriminatoires, et on assiste à l'amplification du mouvement en faveur de leur abolition, alors qu'on invoque la législation relative aux droits de la personne et la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés. Toutefois, à l'analyse, de telles critiques sont souvent contradictoires puisque'elles peuvent s'appliquer tout aussi bien, dans une large mesure, aux critères de comportement que l'on propose le plus fréquemment en remplacement. Un facteur important pour définir l'étendue des « droits à l'égalité » énoncés à l'article 15 sera de déterminer si la pratique courante est « raisonnable » selon la Charte.

Type
Research Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue canadienne de science politique , Volume 18 , Issue 4 , December 1985 , pp. 715 - 737
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Political Science Association (l'Association canadienne de science politique) and/et la Société québécoise de science politique 1985

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Russell, Peter H.“The Effect of a Charter of Rights on the Policy-Making Role of Canadian Courts,” Canadian Public Administration 25 (1982), 2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

2 Morton, F. L. “Charting the Charter-Year One: A Statistical Analysis,” paper presented at the annual meeting of the Canadian Political Science Association, Guelph, 1984.Google Scholar

3 See in general Bayefsky, Anne and Eberts, Mary (eds.). Equality Rights and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Toronto: Carswell [forthcoming]).Google Scholar

4 Atcheson, M. ElizabethEberts, Mary and Symes, Beth with Stoddart, JenniferWomen and Legal Action: Precedents, Resources and Strategies for the Future (Ottawa: Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women, 1984).Google Scholar

5 For background on this issue, see Flanagan, Thomas “The Future of Retirement in Canadian Universities,” Canadian Journal of Higher Education 14 (1984), 19–34Google Scholar, and “Policy-Making by Exegesis: The Abolition of ‘Mandatory Retirement’ in Manitoba,” Canadian Public Policy 11 (1985), 40–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

6 Manitoba Human Rights Act, s. 7(2), am. S.M. 1982, c. 23, s. 20.

7 Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, s. 86(8), am. L.Q. 1982, c. 61, s. 21.

8 Ontario Human Rights Code,s. 21, S.0.1981, c. 53, s. 21. For commentary, see Keene, JudithHuman Rights in Ontario (Toronto: Carswell, 1983), 176–79.Google Scholar

9 Brian Hope v. Royal Insurance Co. and Michael G. Bates v. Zurich Insurance Co., 5 Canadian Human Rights Reporter, D/2248 (1984). (Interim decision on jurisdictional matters.) Hereafter cited as C.H.R.R.

10 Alberta Individual Rights Protection Act, s. 3(a), R.S.A. 1980, c. 1–2. All other provinces have similar wording.

11 Steve Shandrowski v. Alberta Motor Association Insurance Limited, etc.. unreported (December 29, 1978), 19–22.

12 Shandrowski, p. 3 of attached “Recommendations.“.Google Scholar

13 Alberta Human Rights Commission, Discrimination in the Insurance Industry in Alberta (Edmonton, 1981), 41.

14 The Individuals Rights Protection Act, R.S.A. 1980, c. 1–2, s. I3(l)(a).Google Scholar

15 The Herald (Calgary), December 23, 1983.Google Scholar

16 Insurance Corporation of British Columbia v. Robert C. Heerspink and Director, Human Rights Code, 3 C.H.R.R. D/l 163 (1982).Google Scholar

17 Constance Vitcoe v. Dominion Life Insurance Company, 5 C.H.R.R. D/2029 (1984).Google Scholar

18 Ibid.., D/2034.

19 Gay Alliance Toward Equality v. Vancouver Sun (1979), 2 S.C.R.. 435.Google Scholar

20 Canadian regulations were first gazetted January 23, 1980, and have been several times amended. Draft regulations for Manitoba were circulated by mail April 4,1984.

21 Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission, Human Rights and Benefits in the 80's (Regina, 1981).Google Scholar

22 Ibid.., 25–26.

23 Chris Vogel v. Government of Manitoba, 4 C.H.R.R. D/1654 (1983).Google Scholar

24 For example, the Ontario Human Rights Commission intervened to help a cerebral palsy victim obtain automobile insurance at standard premiums (Affirmation, June 1984).

25 Losie, Claudia“Employee-Sponsored Pension Plans Under the Charter”, Osgoode Hall Law Journal 22 (1984), 513–42Google Scholar, deals with some related issues but not with the points discussed here.

26 McCutcheon v. Corporation of the City of Toronto, 3 Charter of Rights Decisions 125. 20–01 (1983). Hereafter cited as C.R.D.

27 Hogg, Peter W.Canada Act 1982 Annotated (Toronto: Carswell, 1982), 77;Google Scholar Katherine Swinton, “Application of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (ss. 30, 31, 32),” in Tarnopolsky, Walter S. and Beaudoin, Gerald-A. (eds.), The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms: Commentary (Toronto: Carswell, 1982), 54.Google Scholar

28 Petter, Andrew “The Charter and Private Action: The Impact of Section 15 on Human Rights Codes,” 5 C.H.R.R. C/84–1 to C/85–5 (1983).Google Scholar

29 Berlin, Mark L.New Proscribed Grounds of Discrimination and Emerging Human Rights in Canada (Ottawa: Department of the Secretary of State, 1983), 72.Google Scholar

30 Quebec v., A. G.Quebec Association of Protestant School Boards, [1984], 2 S.C.R., 66.Google Scholar

31 Ontario Board of Censors v. Ontario Film and Video Appreciation Society, 38 C.R. (3d) 271. 45 O.R. (2d), 80.

32 National Citizens Coalition v. A. G. Canada, 5. C.R.D. 325.20–01 (1984).Google Scholar

33 Black v. Law Society of Alberta, 5 C.R.D. 685–01 (1984).Google Scholar

34 42 U.S.C. 2000 e-2(a)(l).

35 Los Angeles Department of Water and Power v. Manhart 435 M.S. 702, at 708 (1978).Google Scholar

36 Arizona Governing Committee for Tax Deferred Annuity and Deferred Compensation Plans v. Norris, 103 S. Ct. 3492 (1983).Google Scholar

37 Ibid.., at 3506, n.4.

38 Journal of Commerce, April 9, 1984, 7A; Ibid.., April 25, 1984, 7A; Fortune, July 25, 1983, 21–22.

39 Insurance Bureau of Canada, Classification and Rating Criteria for Automobile Insurance: An In-depth Study by an All-Industry Special Committee (Toronto, 1982), 3–4.Google Scholar

40 Kimball, Spencer L. “Reverse Sex Discrimination-Manhart,” American Bar Foundation Research Journal (1979), 112.Google Scholar

41 “Companies are at liberty to choose arbitrarily which set of tables best suits the purpose of the company” (Alberta Human Rights Commission to Henry Kroeger, Minister of Transportation, September 18, 1980, 3, in Alberta Labour Library [Edmonton]).

42 Block, Walter. “Economic Intervention, Discrimination and Unforeseen Consequences,”Google Scholar in Block, W. E. and Walker, M. A. (eds.), Discrimination, Affirmative Action, and Equal Opportunity (Vancouver: Fraser Institute, 1982), 115–16.Google Scholar

43 Benston, George J.. “The Economics of Gender Discrimination in Employee Fringe Benefits: Manhart Revisited,” University of Chicago Law Review 49 (1982), 501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

44 Massachusetts Division of Insurance, Automobile Insurance Risk Classification–Equity and Accuracy (1978), 2–6.

45 Alberta Motorist, 1 (July/August 1984), 9.Google Scholar

46 Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission, Human Rights and Benefits in the 80's, 36.Google Scholar

47 Ontario Legislative Assembly, Select Committee on Company Law, The Insurance Industry: First Report on Automobile Insurance (Toronto, 1977), 110.Google Scholar

48 Quoted in Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission, Human Rights and Benefits in the 80's, 15.Google Scholar

49 Ibid.., 4–5.

50 Ibid..

51 Alberta Human Rights Commission, Discrimination in the Insurance Industry in Alberta, 21.Google Scholar

52 See Brilmayer, Lea et al., “Sex Discrimination in Employer-sponsored Insurance Plans: A Legal and Demographic Analysis,” University of Chicago Law Review 47 (1980), 505–60;CrossRefGoogle Scholar and the critique by Benston, “The Economics of Gender Discrimination.” Benston lists other literature on p. 491, n. 10.

53 Massachusetts Division of Insurance, Automobile Insurance Risk Classification, 11.Google Scholar

54 New Jersey Department of Insurance, In Re: Hearing on Automobile Insurance Classifications and Related Methodologies: Final Determination-Analysis and Report (1981), 52.Google Scholar

55 Massachusetts Division of Insurance, Automobile Insurance Risk Classification, 4–6.Google Scholar

56 Ontario Legislative Assembly, Select Committee on Company Law, The Insurance Industry: First Report, 99–108.Google Scholar

57 Insurance Bureau of Canada, Facts of the General Life Insurance Industry in Canada (Toronto, 1983), 40–43.

58 Rae, Samuel A. Jr. and Trebilcock, Michael J.Rate Determination in the Automobile Insurance Industry in Ontario (Toronto: Insurance Bureau of Canada, 1982), 86–87.Google Scholar

59 Sowell, ThomasKnowledge and Decisions (New York: Basic Books, 1980), 331–67.Google Scholar

60 Alberta Human Rights Commission, to Henry Kroeger, Minister of Transportation, September 10, 1980, in Alberta Labour Library (Edmonton).

61 New Jersey Department of Insurance. Hearing on Automobile Insurance Classifications, 82.Google Scholar

62 British Columbia, Ontario, Northwest Territories, Canada (the latter two only in respect of pardoned offences).

63 Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission, Human Rights and Benefits in the 80's, 22.Google Scholar

64 Flanagan, Thomas “The Manufacture of Minorities,” in Neil Nevitte and Allan Kornberg (eds.). Minorities and the Canadian State (Oakville, Ont.: Mosaic Press, 1985), 107–23.Google Scholar

65 Dahlby, B. G. “Adverse Selection and Statistical Discrimination: An Analysis of Canadian Automobile Insurance,” University of Alberta, Department of Economics Research Paper No. 81–3 (1981).Google Scholar

66 Rae, and Trebilcock, Rate Determination in the Automobile Insurance Industry in Ontario, 84–85.Google Scholar

67 Canadian Life Insurance Association, “Classification on the Basis of Sex in Life Insurance,” submission to the Alberta Human Rights Commission, 1979, 9.

68 5 C.R.D. 685–01 (1984).

69 Cohen, Howard, Equal Rights for Children (Totowa, N.J.: Rowman and Littlefield, 1980).Google Scholar