Cases

SCC Case Information

Summary

33039

Hazel Ruth Withler, et al. v. Attorney General of Canada

(British Columbia) (Civil) (By Leave)

Keywords

Canadian charter - civil.

Summary

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch) for information purposes only.

Charter of Rights - Right to equality - Discrimination - Standard of review - National class actions - Constitutionality of the Public Service Superannuation Act (the Withler action), and the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act (the Fitzsimonds action) - Both statutes provide for a supplementary death benefit payment to cover the expenses associated with last illness and death - Both statutes provide for a reduction of ten percent for every year of age in excess of 65 or 60, respectively, attained by the plan participant - Whether s. 47(1) of the Public Service Superannuation Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. P-36, and ss. 15 and 16 of the Supplementary Death Benefits Regulations, C.R.C., c. 1360, infringe s. 15(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - If so, whether the infringement is a reasonable limit prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society under s. 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Whether s. 60(1) of the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-17, and s. 52 of the Canadian Forces Superannuation Regulations, C.R.C. c. 396, infringe s. 15(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - If so, whether the infringement is a reasonable limit prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society under s. 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

In two class proceedings, the Appellants challenged the constitutionality of s. 47(1) of the Public Service Superannuation Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. P-36 (the “PSSA”), in the Withler action, and s. 66 of the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-17 (the “CFSA”), in the Fitzsimonds action, on the ground that those sections and their companion regulations constitute age discrimination under s. 15 of the Charter. The former provides a supplementary death benefit payment of twice the salary of the participant upon his or her death, “subject to the reduction of ten per cent, to be made as of the time that the regulations prescribe, for every year of age in excess of sixty-five attained by the participant”; the latter is similar, but the reduction begins at age 60. The class members are the surviving spouses of plan participants who were entitled to a supplementary death benefit payment reduced due to the age of their spouse at the time of death. The class members sought a declaration that the reduction provisions are inconsistent with the Charter and of no force and effect, and judgment equivalent to the reduction in the supplementary death benefit payments. The Attorney General countered that the reduction provisions did not infringe the claimants’ human dignity, or, in the alternative, that they were a necessary and minimal impairment of the rights guaranteed under s. 15. The trial judge declined an application to strike the Attorney General’s defence: (2002), 3 B.C.L.R. (4th) 365, 2002 BCSC 820. The actions were dismissed, as were an appeal and cross-appeal.