Survivor Benefits & Mirrors: NSCA Rejects S 15 Charter Challenge In Workers' Compensation Case


Denying survivor benefits to a former spouse is not discriminatory, according to a recent Nova Scotia Court of Appeal decision. In Muggah v Nova Scotia (Workers' Compensation Appeals Tribunal), 2015 NSCA 63, the Court unanimously rejected a section 15 Charter challenge alleging that certain provisions of the Workers' Compensation Act discriminated between current and divorced spouses.

This case is a good reminder that section 15(1) requires a contextual analysis of substantive equality, not a one-for-one "mirror comparison." On a substantive equality analysis, the provisions of the Act that limit payment of survivor benefits to a spouse or member of the worker's family are constitutional. Former spouses can instead pursue remedies through family law.

Discrimination claim

Ms. Muggah ("the applicant") and Mr. Weichel ("the worker") divorced in 2008. Under their Corollary Relief Judgment, the worker was obligated to pay spousal support, and to maintain the applicant as a beneficiary on his life insurance policy. The worker was killed in a workplace accident in 2013. The applicant received the life insurance payment, but then claimed survivor benefits under the Workers' Compensation Act.

The Board refused her application, because the applicant was not eligible as either a "spouse"—which the Act limited to married or cohabiting common-law couples—or as a dependent member of the worker's family. On appeal to the Workers' Compensation Appeals Tribunal, the applicant claimed that the relevant provisions of the Act "discriminated against her on the basis of marital status" contrary to section 15 of the Charter. The WCAT dismissed her Charter challenge, and the applicant appealed to the NSCA. (See paras 1-15.)

Section 15 analysis

There is a well-known two-step test for proving that a law discriminates contrary to section 15(1): "(1) Does the law create a distinction based on an enumerated or analogous ground? (2) Does the distinction create a disadvantage by perpetuating prejudice or stereotyping?" (Withler v Canada (Attorney General), 2011 SCC 12 at para 30, cited in Muggah at para 21; see also Quebec (Attorney General) v A, 2013 SCC 5 and Kahkewistahaw First Nation v Taypotat, 2015 SCC 30).

(1) Distinction based on enumerated or analogous ground?

The applicant relied on the analogous ground of "marital status," arguing that being divorced is "a type of 'marital status'" (para 26). But that's not what the cases say (para 29).


To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT