for that type Have to look at regulations in totality, province Issue is that “minor” injury entitled to legislate re: insurance industry, strong i.e. whiplash, may have public policy in favour of capping damages: very different affects for Rising cost of insurance different people Desire to keep premiums affordable Person claimed discrimination based on Reduces number of uninsured vehicles disability/health status Human Rights Legislation Subject to? Lecture Insurance companies provide a public service and are therefore subject to human rights legislation. Discrimination? Zurich Insurance premiums are based on Here it was young male drivers in Insurance group characteristics and statistics Ontario being charged higher v. OHRC premium than young female But not every individual will always fit drivers, or older male drivers—age their groups profile and sex. Thus practice of determining insurance premiums is inherently discriminatory Exemption BC Human Discriminatory insurance practices and Rationale: risk segmentation and Rights Code policies (services customarily available to actuarial discrimination necessary s. 8 the public) are exempt from application of for effective underwriting, and human rights legislation if based on creates fairness b/c those in the reasonable and bona fide distinctions. pool with low risk should not subsidize those with higher risk. Does exemption Lecture Type of policy: apply? In BC only for life & health (accident, sickness disability) policies In ON exemption also applies to auto NSHRC v. If distinctions used to determine premiums Only discrimination if distinction is Canada Life and/or amount of benefit available of made due to an irrelevant personal insurance is legitimate or unavoidable the characteristic. insurer can rely on the Human Rights Should not use discriminatory exemption. Essentially insurer must act in policies to refuse to provide service good faith. though. Just to charge x rate or limit benefit to x amount. Zurich A discriminatory practice will be Dissent: exemption should be Insurance reasonable if: narrowly construed, if you want to v. OHRC Based upon sound and accepted fall into exemption must should insurance practice; and that there is NO reasonable or There is no practical practical alternative. efficacy is not enough. Relying on traditional or accepted Result: auto insurance exempted from insurance practices is inadequate. human rights code, allowed to charge Circular.
Have to look at regulations in totality, province entitled to legislate re: insurance industry, strong public policy in favour of capping damages: Rising cost of insurance Desire to keep premiums affordable Reduces number of uninsured vehicles for that type Issue is that “minor” injury i.e. whiplash, may have very different affects for different people Person claimed discrimination based on disability/health status Human Rights Legislation Subject to? Lecture Insurance companies provide a public service and are therefore subject to human rights legislation. Discrimination? Zurich Insurance v. OHRC Insurance premiums are based on group characteristics and statistics But not every individual will always fit their groups profile Thus practice of determining insurance premiums is inherently discriminatory Here it was young male drivers in Ontario being charged higher premium than young female drivers, or older male drivers—age and sex. Exemption BC Human Rights Code s. 8 Discriminatory insurance practices and policies (services customarily available to the public) are exempt from application of human rights legislation if based on reasonable and bona fide distinctions. Rationale: risk segmentation and actuarial discrimination necessary for effective underwriting, and creates fairness b/c those in the pool with low risk should not subsidize those with higher risk. Does exemption apply? Lecture Type of policy: In BC only for life & health (accident, sickness disability) policies In ON exemption also applies to auto NSHRC v. Canada Life If distinctions used to determine premiums and/or amount of benefit available of insurance is legitimate or unavoidable the insurer can rely on the Human Rights exemption. Essentially insurer must act in good faith. Only discrimination if distinction is made due to an irrelevant personal characteristic. Should not use discriminatory policies to refuse to provide service though. Just to charge x rate or limit benefit to x amount. Zurich Insurance v. OHRC A discriminatory practice will be reasonable if: Based upon sound and accepted insurance practice; and There is no practical efficacy is not enough. Result: auto insurance exempted from human rights code, allowed to charge Dissent: exemption should be narrowly construed, if you want to fall into exemption must should that there is NO reasonable or practical alternative. Relying on traditional or accepted insurance practices is inadequate. Circular.