It seems even the judiciary isn’t immune to efforts to rein in benefits plans, including post-retirement coverage.
In a recent decision of Ontario’s Divisional Court, Justice Elizabeth Stewart granted a bid by the Association of Justices of the Peace of Ontario for a stay of certain benefits changes that were to take effect on April 1. The provincial government went ahead with the changes despite a recommendation from a justices of the peace remuneration commission set up to consider salary and other compensation matters for those who consider issues such as bail applications and minor provincial offences cases.
Read: Who are the top earners in pensions and HR in Ontario’s public sector?
Last year, the commission issued a report that “reluctantly concluded that it would be unwise and injudicious to report on the benefits/pension issues” and instead deferred the matter. But in December, the government, citing the need to control costs and harmonize benefits with changes affecting other public employees, implemented them anyway. The changes included the introduction of a health spending account, reductions in certain categories and enhancements in others and a new catastrophic drug coverage plan. They also included, in line with Ontario’s “deficit reduction objectives,” changes to post-retirement benefits.
The association argues the decision to ignore the commission’s recommendations is out of line with rulings on the process necessary to ensure judicial independence and suggests the government has contravened its constitutional obligations by moving ahead with the pension and benefits changes.
Read: Budget 2016 promises changes to pension regulations
In her decision on the stay application, Stewart outlined what those constitutional obligations involve. “The applicable principles governing government responses to judicial compensation commission reports have also been set out in a series of decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada which has stressed that the work of judicial compensation commissions must be given ‘meaningful effect,’ she wrote.
“This does not mean that the recommendations of commissions must be binding, as they are not binding absent specific legislation requiring them to be so. Rather, governments are permitted to depart from recommendations in a report, but only for a ‘rational’ reason.”
In staying the changes in advance of a judicial review of the government’s actions, Stewart decided they’d cause irreparable harm to the justices of the peace.
“The cutting of health-related benefits, in particular – even for a short time- would cause harm that would be irreparable to those entitled to receive them,” she wrote.
Read: Drug plan trends report: How drug plans are addressing skyrocketing costs