Zurich Insurance Co. v. Ontario (Human Rights Commission)

Zurich Insurance Co. v. Ontario (Human Rights Commission)
Collection
Supreme Court Judgments
Date
1992-06-25
Report
[1992] 2 SCR 321
Case number
21737
Judges
Lamer, Antonio; La Forest, Gérard V.; L'Heureux-Dubé, Claire; Sopinka, John; Gonthier, Charles Doherty; McLachlin, Beverley; Iacobucci, Frank
On appeal from
Ontario
Subjects
Constitutional law
Notes
SCC Case Information: 21737
Decision Content
Zurich Insurance Co. v. Ontario (Human Rights Commission), [1992] 2 S.C.R. 321
IN THE MATTER OF the Ontario Human Rights
Code, 1981, S.O. 1981, c. 53, as amended;
AND
IN THE MATTER OF the complaint made by
Mr. Michael G. Bates, of Islington, Ontario,
alleging discrimination in the right to
contract and services, goods and facilities
by the Zurich Insurance Company,
188 University Avenue, Toronto, Ontario
Ontario Human Rights Commission Appellant
v.
Zurich Insurance Company Respondent
and
Michael G. Bates Complainant
and
Commission des droits de la personne du Québec
and Alberta Human Rights Commission Interveners
Indexed as: Zurich Insurance Co. v. Ontario (Human Rights Commission)
File No.: 21737.
1991: November 5; 1992: June 25.
Present: Lamer C.J. and La Forest, L'Heureux‑Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, McLachlin and Iacobucci JJ.
on appeal from the court of appeal for ontario
Human rights ‑‑ Discrimination on basis of sex, age and marital status ‑‑ Insurance ‑‑ Young unmarried male drivers charged higher car insurance premiums than similarly situated females or married males ‑‑ Insurance industry exempted from Act if grounds reasonable and bona fide ‑‑ Whether or not reasonable and bona fide grounds ‑‑ Human Rights Code, 1981, S.O. 1981, c. 53, ss. 1, 3, 8, 21, 24(1)(b), 46(3).
A Board of Inquiry, appointed pursuant to the Ontario Human Rights Code, 1981, upheld a complaint made in May, 1983, that the respondent insurer engaged in prohibited discriminatory practices in that young, single, male drivers were charged higher car insurance rates than young, single, female drivers or, young, married, male drivers or any drivers 25 years of age or over. The complainant alleged denial of the right to contract on equal terms without discrimination and of the right to equal treatment in services.
Respondent conceded that the classification system upon which its premiums were based constituted a prima facie infringement of the Code but argued that the distinction between classes of drivers was based on reasonable and bona fide grounds and therefore fell within the exception provided by s. 21 of the Code.
The Board of Inquiry found that the Code had been contravened but the Divisional Court and the Court of Appeal held otherwise. At issue here was whether differentiation in automobile insurance rates based upon age, sex and marital status was reasonable and bona fide within the meaning of s. 21 of the Human Rights Code, 1981.
Held (L'Heureux‑Dubé and McLachlin JJ. dissenting): The appeal should be dismissed.
Per Lamer C.J. and La Forest, Sopinka, Gonthier and Iacobucci JJ.: The determination of insurance rates and benefits does not fit easily within traditional human rights concepts. The underlying philosophy of human rights legislation is that an individual has a right to be dealt with on his or her own merits and not on the basis of group characteristics. Exceptions to this legislation should be narrowly construed. Insurance rates, however, are based on statistics relating to the degree of risk associated with a class or group of persons. Although not all persons in the class share the same risk characteristics, it is wholly impractical that each insured be assessed individually. Sometimes the class or group classification chosen will coincide with a prohibited ground of discrimination, bringing the rating scheme into conflict with human rights legislation. The Code, however, exempts an insurer from liability for discrimination if based on reasonable and bona fide grounds.
An important principle of insurance practice is that premiums charged to individual policy holders vary as much as possible in accordance with the degree of risk posed by the policy holder. The degree of risk is necessarily determined on the basis of groups sharing characteristics material to the risk. Inevitably, some will be placed in a group who do not share the average characteristics of that group with the result that the rate discriminates against them. The basic human rights principles must take into account these differences when applied in the context of insurance.
Section 21 provides a defence to a prima facie discriminatory practice if reasonable and bona fide grounds for that practice exist. A discriminatory practice is "reasonable" within the meaning of s. 21 of the Code (a) if it is based on a sound and accepted insurance practice, and (b)if there is no practical alternative. A practice is sound if it is desirable to adopt it for the purpose of achieving the legitimate business objective of charging premiums that are commensurate with risk. The availability of a practical alternative is a question of fact to be determined having regard to all of the facts of the case. The practice, to meet the test of "bona fides", must be adopted honestly, in the interests of sound and accepted business practice and not for the purpose of defeating the rights protected under the Code.
Human rights values cannot be over‑ridden by business expediency alone. To allow "statistically supportable" discrimination would undermine the intent of human rights legislation which attempts to protect individuals from collective fault. It would also perpetuate traditional stereotypes with all of their invidious prejudices. Whether there was an alternative, which in all the circumstances was practicable, must be considered.
Setting premiums on a basis that did not rely on the classifications then in use was not a practical alternative for the industry. It would have been even more impractical for the respondent unilaterally to adopt its own classifications based on non‑discriminatory criteria because actuarially reliable figures, based on only its own data, were impractical or impossible to obtain. The fact that it was theoretically possible to collect data based on other criteria does not establish that reasonable alternatives to the current system exist. In the absence of alternative criteria to set premiums, it was unreasonable to expect Zurich to simply guess at an equitable distribution of premiums among the consumers it insured.
To require an insurer to establish that the very essence of its business would be undermined if it could no longer rely on discriminatory group characteristics for its rate classification system is too high a standard and is not required by s. 21. This standard ascribes too narrow a meaning to what constitutes a practical alternative. An alternative may be impractical even though its adoption would not undermine the very essence of a business. Furthermore, this standard tended to minimize the importance of the statutory framework within which the industry and the respondent were required to operate.
The insurance industry must be allowed time to determine whether it can restructure its classification system in a manner that will eliminate discrimination based on enumerated group characteristics and still reflect the disparate risks of different classes of drivers. While the situation as it existed in 1983 did not provide a reasonable alternative to setting premiums based on age, sex and marital status, the situation today and in the future may be quite different. The insurance industry must strive to avoid setting premiums based on enumerated grounds.
Per L'Heureux‑Dubé J. (dissenting): Legislation prohibiting discrimination must be broadly construed using a purposive approach and defences to discrimination must be narrowly construed. Section 21, which allows discrimination if "reasonable and bona fide" grounds exist, must therefore be narrowly construed. The party seeking to justify discrimination against an individual must show that there is no reasonable or practical alternative. The rule will not be bona fide if one exists.
The test for "reasonable and bona fide grounds" should be based on the test established for employment situations. The terms "reasonable and bona fide" are stronger than the single term "bona fide". The protection of individual rights is equally important in employment and insurance contexts.
A two‑pronged test with subjective and objective components should be adopted. The subjective component requires that a distinction in an insurance contract based on age, sex, marital status, family status or handicap be imposed honestly, in good faith, and in the sincerely held belief that such distinction accurately reflects the cost of the risk insured, rather than for ulterior or extraneous reasons aimed at objectives which could defeat the purpose of the Code. The objective component requires that the distinction be reasonably necessary to assure the proper allocation of risk among insured groups. Any rational connection must causally link distinction and the insured risk and must be more than a statistical correlation or a simple reliance on traditional or accepted insurance practices which may be nonetheless needlessly discriminatory. The distinction must also be a reasonable means of identifying and classifying similar risks.
Respondent, given a prima facie case of discrimination, must demonstrate the "reasonable and bona fide grounds" underlying the discriminatory classification system. The first, subjective component of the applicable test was met as the respondent used its discriminatory classification system in good faith. The objective component, however, was not met. The respondent's conclusion that a rational connection existed since the evidence demonstrated a statistical correlation between young, single males and high risk is dangerously and fundamentally flawed. The mere statistical correlation between a group and higher risk cannot suffice to justify discrimination on prohibited grounds. Such correlation accepts the very stereotyping that is deemed unacceptable by human rights legislation: prohibited grounds of discrimination are used to ascribe the characteristics of the group to all individuals in the class. Discrimination based on statistical correlation is simply discrimination in a more invidious form. Strong statistical proof is required to demonstrate a rational connection between the discriminatory classification and high risk. This proof, however, must not simply be one of correlation, but one of causal connection. Respondent has not established this.
The availability of alternative means of classifying individuals into groups can be considered under the objective branch of the test. The complaint of discrimination is not answered by the fact that the collection of statistics, which would have provided the basis for an alternative classification system, was not required by the Superintendent of Insurance. It was not up to the Superintendent to decide whether or not there was an infringement of the Code.
In keeping with the policy of curial deference to the findings of fact of specialized tribunals, the facts as stated by the Board should not be second‑guessed by this Court in the absence of a clear error or misapprehension on the part of the Board. The Board had the advantage of seeing and hearing the witnesses.
To simply assert that a system has been in place for 50 years is an inadequate response to the argument that there are alternatives to the system. The insurance industry cannot rely on its inaction and its self‑serving claim that the practice "has always been done this way" to defend its discriminatory practices on grounds of a lack of statistical data. If it could, complacency and a history of discrimination would be rewarded at the cost of progress and the recognition of higher societal norms of behaviour.
An alternative to the discriminatory classification system existed at the time of the complaint. The premiums of drivers over the age of 25 were set according to completely non‑discriminatory classifications. Respondent, given this alternative and the absence of evidence that it could not be adopted for unmarried male drivers under age 25, did not establish that the discriminatory system was reasonable.
Per McLachlin J. (dissenting): The law clearly forbids discrimination on the grounds of age, sex and marital status, unless the offender can establish that its intentions were bona fide and that, on an objective test, there was no practical or reasonable alternative to discriminating on those grounds. The insurer, however, did not demonstrate that there was no practical alternative in 1983 to basing its premiums for young men on age, sex and marital status.
An absence of statistics based on grounds other than age, sex and marital status does not establish that there are no risk factors other than age, sex and marital status which would achieve the objective of charging premiums that are commensurate with risk. An absence of statistics does not establish that there is no other alternative. It only establishes that it is not known whether or not other viable alternative bases of risk evaluation exist and that the insurer does not have the means to establish them. As a matter of logic, the absence of alternative statistics is equally consistent with the inference that alternatives exist as with the inference that alternatives do not exist. The insurer must bear the burden of showing no reasonable alternative exists, and, through its own failure to collect the required data, has failed to meet this burden.
The effect of confusing absence of a reasonable alternative with absence of proof of a reasonable alternative is to remove the burden of proof from the shoulders of the person who prima facie violates the Code and to place it on the shoulders of the person who complains of discrimination. This is contrary to human rights tradition and contrary to the rule of evidence that the burden of proof should lie on the person most likely to be in possession of the relevant facts. And on the plane of policy, such an approach would encourage prima facie offenders to continue in their traditional discriminatory ways rather than reforming their practices in accordance with the object of the Code.
The law should not allow difficulties of proving the non‑existence of reasonable alternatives to stand as a defence to a charge under the Code. To the extent that it may take time for industry to convert from ingrained discriminatory practices to non‑discriminatory alternatives (or alternatively to show that none is possible), those difficulties are better dealt with under the rubric of remedies than by saying there is no violation of the Code.
The insurer cannot be excused for its failure to demonstrate reasonable alternatives. First, there is no precedent in human rights cases for excusing a person who is guilty of prima facie discrimination on any ground absent reasonable alternatives. Second, its excuses adduced here were not sufficient. An insurer doing business in a province must comply with all the laws of that province, and failure of the Superintendent of Insurance to require the collection of statistics on bases other than prohibited grounds of discrimination does not amount to satisfying the Code. The size of the firm and its capacity to fix rates unilaterally on non‑discriminatory statistics cannot be accepted as a defence as it would create differing standards for large and small firms. To accept less than requiring the prima facie offender to provide actual justification for what may in the past have been assumed to be justified would constitute an `about‑face' in human rights law which could seriously undermine the effectiveness of human rights codes. Third, the insurer cannot discharge that burden merely by showing that it is difficult to ascertain whether there are reasonable alternatives and if so, what they are. Difficulty alone has never been accepted as an excuse for discriminatory conduct contrary to human rights legislation.
The Code requires the classifications on which premiums are set to be rationally defensible. If they are not, they must be found to violate, even if other classes are negatively affected. Any adverse effect on drivers in other categories arises from the insurer's failure to shoulder the burden which the law imposes of conforming to the Code or demonstrating the absence of reasonable alternatives.
Cases Cited
By Sopinka
Considered: Saskatchewan (Human Rights Commission) v. Saskatoon (City), [1989] 2 S.C.R. 1297; distinguished: Ontario Human Rights Commission v. Borough of Etobicoke, [1982] 1 S.C.R. 202; National Corn Growers Assn. v. Canada (Import Tribunal), [1990] 2 S.C.R. 1324; Lester (W.W.) (1978) Ltd. v. United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry, Local 740, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 644; Gendron v. Supply and Services Union of the Public Service Alliance of Canada, Local 50057, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 1298; CAIMAW v. Paccar of Canada Ltd., [1989] 2 S.C.R. 983; referred to: Fletcher v. Manitoba Public Insurance Co., [1990] 3 S.C.R. 191; Bell Canada v. Canada (Canadian Radio‑television and Telecommunications Commission), [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1722; Ontario Human Rights Commission v. Simpsons‑Sears Ltd., [1985] 2 S.C.R. 536; Brossard (Town) v. Quebec (Commission des droits de la personne), [1988] 2 S.C.R. 279; Bhinder v. Canadian National Railway Co., [1985] 2 S.C.R. 561; Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424 (1971); Central Alberta Dairy Pool v. Alberta (Human Rights Commission), [1990] 2 S.C.R. 489; Hartford Accident and Indemnity Co. v. Insurance Commissioner of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 482 A.2d 542 (1984); Pennsylvania National Organization for Women v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Insurance Department, 551 A.2d 1162 (1988).
By L'Heureux‑Dubé J. (dissenting)
Ontario Human Rights Commission v. Simpsons‑Sears Ltd., [1985] 2 S.C.R. 536; Insurance Corporation of British Columbia v. Heerspink, [1982] 2 S.C.R. 145; Brossard (Town) v. Quebec (Commission des droits de la personne), [1988] 2 S.C.R. 279; Bhinder v. Canadian National Railway Co., [1985] 2 S.C.R. 561; Caldwell v. Stuart, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 603; National Corn Growers Assn. v. Canada (Import Tribunal), [1990] 2 S.C.R. 1324; Lester (W.W.) (1978) Ltd. v. United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry, Local 740, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 644; Bell Canada v. Canada (Canadian Radio‑television and Telecommunications Commission), [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1722; CAIMAW v. Paccar of Canada Ltd., [1989] 2 S.C.R. 983; Gendron v. Supply and Services Union of the Public Service Alliance of Canada, Local 50057, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 1298; Canada (Attorney General) v. Public Service Alliance of Canada, [1991] 1 S.C.R. 614; Ontario Human Rights Commission v. Borough of Etobicoke, [1982] 1 S.C.R. 202; Re Ontario Human Rights Commission and City of North Bay (1977), 17 O.R. (2d) 712; R. v. M. (S.H.), [1989] 2 S.C.R.. 446; Saskatchewan (Human Rights Commission) v. Saskatoon (City), [1989] 2 S.C.R. 1297; Central Alberta Dairy Pool v. Alberta (Human Rights Commission), [1990] 2 S.C.R. 489; Canada (Attorney General) v. Rosin, [1991] 1 F.C. 391; Hartford Accident and Indemnity Co. v. Insurance Commissioner of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 482 A.2d 542 (1984); Pennsylvania National Organization for Women v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Insurance Department, 551 A.2d 1162 (1988).
Statutes and Regulations Cited
Canadian Human Rights Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. H‑6, ss. 15 (a), (g).
Compulsory Automobile Insurance Act, R.S.O. 1980, c. 83, s. 10.
Employment Standards Act, R.S.O. 1980, c. 137, s. 34(2).
Human Rights Code, 1981, S.O. 1981, c. 53, ss. 1, 3, 8, 21, 24(1)(b), (2), 41(1), (3), 46(3).
Insurance Act, R.S.O. 1980, c. 218, ss. 80(1), (2), 393(b)(iii), 396.
Insurance Statute Law Amendment Act, 1990, S.O. 1990, c. 2, ss. 3(1), 74.
Ontario Automobile Insurance Board Act, 1988, S.O. 1988, c. 18, s. 33(1).
Regulation 282 under the Employment Standards Act, R.R.O. 1980.
Authors Cited
Ontario. Inquiry into Motor Vehicle Accident Compensation in Ontario. Report of Inquiry into Motor Vehicle Accident Compensation in Ontario. (The "Osborne Report".) Toronto: Queen's Printer for Ontario, 1988.
National Association of Insurance Commissioners. Report of the rates and Rating Procedures Task Force of the Automobile Insurance (D3) Subcommittee (November, 1978).
Ryan, Stephen R. "The Elimination of Gender Discrimination in Insurance Pricing: Does Automobile Insurance Rate Without Sex?" (1986), 61 Notre Dame L. Rev. 748
APPEAL from a judgment of the Ontario Court of Appeal (1989), 70 O.R. (2d) 639, 49 O.A.C. 361, 45 C.C.L.I. 303, dismissing an appeal from a judgment of the Divisional Court (1987), 58 O.R. (2d) 325, [1987] I.L.R. {PP} 1‑2148, 23 C.C.L.I. 130, allowing an appeal from a judgment of board of inquiry of the Ontario Human Rights Commission (1985), 6 C.H.R.R. D/2948. Appeal dismissed, L'Heureux‑Dubé and McLachlin JJ. dissenting.
J. E. Minor, T. H. Wickett and Tanya Lee, for the appellant.
J. F. Howard, Q.C., Neil Finkelstein and Jeff Galway, for the respondent.
Beatrice Vizkelety and Madeleine Caron, for the intervener Commission des droits de la personne du Québec.
J. Leslie Wallace and S. E. Fitzgerald, for the intervener Alberta Human Rights Commission.
The judgment of Lamer C.J. and La Forest, Sopinka, Gonthier and Iacobucci JJ. was delivered by
//Sopinka J.//
Sopinka J. -- The issue raised in this appeal is whether differentiation in automobile insurance rates based upon age, sex and marital status is reasonable and bona fide within the meaning of s. 21 of the Ontario Human Rights Code, 1981, S.O. 1981, c. 53 (now R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, s. 22). The respondent, Zurich Insurance Company ("Zurich"), in setting its rates in 1983, discriminated against single, male drivers under the age of 25 but it claims exemption from liability by virtue of s. 21 of the Code.
The Facts
On April 30, 1984, a Board of Inquiry was appointed pursuant to the Ontario Human Rights Code, 1981 (the "Code") to hear and decide a complaint made in May of 1983 by Mr. Michael G. Bates against the respondent insurance company. This complaint alleged that young, single, male drivers must pay automobile insurance rates which exceed the rates paid by young, single, female drivers, the rates paid by young, married, male drivers and the rates paid by any drivers 25 years of age or over. Mr. Bates alleged that this discrepancy contravened provisions in the Code. The complainant alleged that he had been denied the right to contract on equal terms without discrimination contrary to ss. 3 and 8 of the Code. The complainant also alleged that his right to equal treatment in services, goods and facilities had been infringed contrary to ss. 1 and 8 of the Code.
Zurich concedes that the classification system upon which its premiums were based constitutes a prima facie infringement of the Code but it argues that this infringement is a "distinction, exclusion or preference on reasonable and bona fide grounds" and thus falls within the exception provided by s. 21 of the Code.
The Board of Inquiry concluded that the automobile driver classification for unmarried male drivers under 25 years of age contravened the Code. Zurich appealed this decision and the Divisional Court allowed the appeal. The appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal for Ontario which dismissed the appeal. This appeal comes before the Court with leave.
Judgments
A. Board of Inquiry (1985), 6 C.H.R.R. D/2948
The Board of Inquiry based its decision on an extension of the reasoning used by this Court in Ontario Human Rights Commission v. Borough of Etobicoke, [1982] 1 S.C.R. 202. While indicating that no perfect analogy existed for the application of the Etobicoke decision to the insurance context, the Board concluded, at p. D/2962, that it was reasonable to utilize the basic principles of the Etobicoke case:
Just as employers are required to demonstrate that a discriminatory limitation is reasonably necessary to assure the safe, efficient and economic performance of the job in order to establish a "bona fide occupational qualification", so too insurers should be required by section 21 of the Code to demonstrate that a rate classification system, which discriminates on the basis of prohibited group characteristics, is reasonably necessary to ensure the efficient operation of the insurance system.
The Board held that ease of determining rates was not sufficient to satisfy the bona fide requirements of s. 21. It concluded, at p. D/2964, that to be reasonably necessary it was up to Zurich to demonstrate "that it would be impractical or impossible to operate the automobile insurance system with the use of non-discriminatory criteria for rate classification".
The Board of Inquiry then examined whether the method of setting premiums used by Zurich was reasonably necessary. The Board noted that there had been no evidence offered to support the assertion that it has been scientifically proved that there is a direct, causal relationship between the discriminatory group factors used and high risk. It concluded that these factors were mere proxies for other factors. The Board also suggested that there were non-discriminatory alternatives which were possible and desirable in determining the premiums of insured drivers. One alternative mentioned by the Board was to incorporate the non-discriminatory criteria used for setting rates for those 25 years of age or over and apply them to the under 25 category. The Board of Inquiry concluded that Zurich had failed to establish that the very essence of its business would be undermined if it could no longer rely on discriminatory group characteristics for its rate classification system and thus the method of setting rates was not reasonably necessary.
B.Divisional Court (1987), 58 O.R. (2d) 325
The Divisional Court concluded, at pp. 329-30, that the Board of Inquiry had fallen into error in interpreting s. 21 of the Code:
Thus, in the course of its judgment the board progressed from the statutory requirement that the insurer show that it proceeded on "reasonable and bona fide grounds" to a requirement that the insurer establish that its grounds were "reasonably necessary". After a consideration of American cases, it made a further leap to a requirement that the insurer establish "that the very existence of the business would be undermined if the discriminatory requirements could not be relied upon".
In our view, neither of these leaps can be justified. Something may be reasonable without being necessary. Something may be reasonable without being so essential that the existence of an industry will be undermined if it cannot be relied upon. [Emphasis in original.]
The court held that there was no reason to substitute the plain words of "reasonable and bona fide grounds" for the concept of undermining the existence of a business. It was also unnecessary that the words "reasonably necessary" be imported into s. 21 as a result of the Etobicoke decision. Etobicoke was distinguishable as it was an employment case and the words being construed were "bona fide occupational classification and requirement", the words of which import occupational qualifications. The wording of s. 21 is different and there was no justification in substituting for the words used in s. 21, "reasonable and bona fide grounds", the words "reasonably necessary grounds". In the occupational context, individual assessment is vital; in the insurance context it is impossible. Section 21 recognizes that "the many who are skilled, experienced, careful and lucky will subsidize those who are not" (at p. 330).
The court held that the words "reasonable and bona fide grounds", as used in s. 21, should be construed according to their plain meaning. The court then turned to a consideration of whether the grounds used to set the premiums were reasonable. It concluded, at p. 331, that the distinctions created by the classification system were reasonable distinctions based on age, sex and marital status:
The available statistical information demonstrates clearly that the single male driver under 25 years of age is the highest risk classification. Average costs resulting from claims within that classification are triple those of the average class. The statistics show that premium income from this class is not sufficient to satisfy the loss costs of the class. The premium charged to the single male driver under 25 years of age is, accordingly, subsidized by other classifications. It appears reasonable that the group causing the highest loss costs should pay the highest premium. In short, the current classification system, although subject to future revision and current doubts, does embody distinctions supported by reasonable, actuarially verified statistics.
With respect to the complainant's argument that he may be a much better risk than the other members of his group, the court noted that it was inevitable that in every class there would be drivers who represent worse or better risks than average. Nonetheless, premiums must be based on averages.
The court added that there were, at the relevant time, no statistics available to classify drivers on any other basis. While the Superintendent of Insurance (now the Commissioner) had the power to require statistics to be compiled on another basis, this power had not been utilized. Absent such data, the existing verified statistics provided a suitable framework for reasonable and bona fide distinctions to be drawn through insurance classifications. The absence of any other statistics also supported the "common perception, shared by the industry and its regulators, of the reasonableness of the classifications" (at p. 332). In the alternative, the court was of the view that Zurich had met the test of "reasonable necessity" as it had relied upon the only statistics available to it. These statistics showed that the class into which Mr. Bates fell was the class generating the highest loss cost. The court was of the view that to ignore those statistics would have been irresponsible.
C.Court of Appeal (1989), 70 O.R. (2d) 639
The Court of Appeal agreed with the decision and reasons of the Divisional Court and dismissed the appeal.
The Issue
The issue to be determined in this appeal is whether the method by which Zurich set its automobile insurance premiums, which admittedly discriminates on the basis of age, sex and marital status, nonetheless satisfies the "reasonable and bona fide grounds" exemption provided by s. 21 of the Code.
For the purposes of convenience I reproduce the relevant portions of the Code below:
1. Every person has a right to equal treatment with respect to services, goods and facilities, without discrimination because of race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, sex, age, marital status, family status or handicap.
3. Every person having legal capacity has a right to contract on equal terms without discrimination because of race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, sex, age, marital status, family status or handicap.
8. No person shall infringe or do, directly or indirectly, anything that infringes a right under this Part.
21. The right under sections 1 and 3 to equal treatment with respect to services and to contract on equal terms, without discrimination because of age, sex, marital status, family status or handicap, is not infringed where a contract of automobile, life, accident or sickness or disability insurance or a contract of group insurance between an insurer and an association or person other than an employer, or a life annuity, differentiates or makes a distinction, exclusion or preference on reasonable and bona fide grounds because of age, sex, marital status, family status or handicap.
41.--(1) Any party to a proceeding before a board of inquiry may appeal from a decision or order of the board to the Divisional Court in accordance with the rules of court.
. . .
(3) An appeal under this section may be made on questions of law or fact or both and the court may affirm or reverse the decision or order of the board of inquiry or direct the board to make any decision or order that the board is authorized to make under this Act and the court may substitute its opinion for that of the board. [Emphasis added.]
Standard of Review
In considering the manner in which the lower courts have dealt with this proceeding, it is important to keep in mind that the standard of review by the courts in matters of this type is different from normal appellate review. This Court will normally overturn findings of fact only when there has been a palpable and overriding error made by the trier of fact (Fletcher v. Manitoba Public Insurance Co., [1990] 3 S.C.R. 191, at pp. 202-6). The Code, however, states in s. 41(3) (now s. 42(3)) that an appeal lies to a court on any question of law or fact and that the court may substitute its opinion for that of the Board of Inquiry (see also Etobicoke, supra, at p. 211). Evidently, the legislature was not of the opinion that the conclusions of the Board of Inquiry should be given great deference as a result of accumulated expertise or specialized understanding.
Unlike the situation present in many of the cases considered by this Court in regard to curial deference of administrative action (including the cases of National Corn Growers Assn. v. Canada (Import Tribunal), [1990] 2 S.C.R. 1324, Lester (W.W.) (1978) Ltd. v. United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry, Local 740, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 644, Gendron v. Supply and Services Union of the Public Service Alliance of Canada, Local 50057, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 1298, and CAIMAW v. Paccar of Canada Ltd., [1989] 2 S.C.R. 983, discussed in the reasons of L'Heureux-Dubé J. at p. 000), there is no privative clause, or any other clause signifying an attempt to protect the decision of the Board of Inquiry from attack in the courts, involved in this appeal. In fact, as I have noted above, there is an appeal clause which confers powers on a reviewing court that are considerably wider than the normal powers of an appellate court. This was acknowledged in the Etobicoke decision where McIntyre J. stated, at p. 211, that "[t]he appellate court is specifically empowered to review the evidence and substitute its own findings for those of the board of inquiry...." As a result of this clear statutory and jurisprudential authority, I am unable to agree with my colleague L'Heureux-Dubé J., at p. 000, that "[i]t is not open to the Court to conduct its own re-examination of the evidence, and then to substitute its opinion for that of the tribunal".
In spite of the ability to overturn decisions of the Board on findings of fact, this Court has indicated that some curial deference will apply even to cases without privative clauses to reflect the principle of the specialization of duties (see Bell Canada v. Canada (Canadian Radio‑television and Telecommunications Commission), [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1722, at p. 1746, Etobicoke, supra, at p. 211). While curial deference will apply to findings of fact, which the Board of Inquiry may have been in a better position to determine, such deference will not apply to findings of law in which the Board has no particular expertise. The record provided to the Court and the judgments below are not, in my view, in conflict on issues of fact but merely in interpreting the legal implications flowing from those facts. Moreover, it is common ground between my colleague and me that the Board applied the wrong test. Its findings, therefore, cannot be accepted without subjecting the facts to an analysis on the basis of the appropriate test. Accordingly, both my colleague and I have reviewed the evidence unconstrained by curial deference. The fact that my colleague's review of the evidence in light of a different test yields a result that accords with the conclusion reached by the Board does not defer to the Board but, rather, urges that the Board came to the right result for the wrong reasons.
Reasonable and Bona Fide Grounds
The determination of insurance rates and benefits does not fit easily within traditional human rights concepts. The underlying philosophy of human rights legislation is that an individual has a right to be dealt with on his or her own merits and not on the basis of group characteristics. Conversely, insurance rates are set based on statistics relating to the degree of risk associated with a class or group of persons. Although not all persons in the class share the same risk characteristics, no one would suggest that each insured be assessed individually. That would be wholly impractical. Sometimes the class or group classification chosen will coincide with a prohibited ground of discrimination, bringing the rating scheme into conflict with human rights legislation. The Code, in s. 21 and other sections, has recognized the special problem of insurance. It exempts an insurer from liability for discrimination if based on reasonable and bona fide grounds. The Board of Inquiry in this appeal determined that these words had the same meaning as the bona fide occupational qualification or requirement provision which applies in employment cases. It is necessary to determine whether the test developed in employment cases can be transplanted to the special field of insurance and, in particular, to the setting of insurance rates.
In approaching the interpretation of a human rights statute, certain special principles must be respected. Human rights legislation is amongst the most pre-eminent category of legislation. It has been described as having a "special nature, not quite constitutional but certainly more than the ordinary..." (Ontario Human Rights Commission v. Simpsons-Sears Ltd., [1985] 2 S.C.R. 536, at p. 547). One of the reasons such legislation has been so described is that it is often the final refuge of the disadvantaged and the disenfranchised. As the last protection of the most vulnerable members of society, exceptions to such legislation should be narrowly construed (Brossard (Town) v. Quebec (Commission des droits de la personne), [1988] 2 S.C.R. 279, at p. 307; see also Bhinder v. Canadian National Railway Co., [1985] 2 S.C.R. 561, at pp. 567 and 589).
In a series of human rights cases, these principles have been applied to determine the meaning of a bona fide occupational qualification or requirement with respect to discrimination in employment. This Court developed a two-pronged test encompassing both a subjective and an objective element. To satisfy the subjective element, a qualification or requirement having a discriminatory effect must have been imposed honestly, in good faith and in the sincerely held belief that such a limitation "is imposed in the interests of the adequate performance of the work involved ... and not for ulterior or extraneous reasons..." (Etobicoke, supra, at p. 208). To satisfy the objective component of the test, it was necessary to show that the qualification or requirement was "reasonably necessary to assure the efficient and economical performance of the job..." (at p. 208; see also Brossard, supra, at pp. 311-12). The language of the Ontario statute which gave birth to this dual test clearly indicated that the qualification or requirement must be "job related" but gave no guidance as to the standard against which that relationship was to be judged. The section of the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1970, c. 318, in question in Etobicoke did not use the word "reasonable". The Court adopted the "reasonable necessity" test which was in current use in the United States. See Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424 (1971). The current wording