CUPE, Local 145 v. EllisDon Facilities Services (Osler) Inc., 2026 CanLII 57033 (ON LA)
Deanna Webb, Arbitrator — June 10, 2026

EllisDon denied access to long-term disability coverage because the grievor was over 65 at the time of disability. The arbitrator found that the Employer breached the collective agreement by relying on its insurer’s age restriction rather than the HOODIP booklet incorporated through Article 13.01(a).

Background

The grievor was over 65 and had more than 10 years of service when he became disabled. Canada Life declined his LTD application because he was over 65 at the time of disability.

The collective agreement included centrally bargained Article 13.01(a), which contemplated LTD coverage. The Employer’s former and current insurance plans both stated that LTD benefits terminated when a member turned 65.

The Union relied on prior decisions interpreting Article 13.01(a) as requiring LTD coverage in accordance with the HOODIP booklet, including for employees over age 65 where the HOODIP requirements were met. The Employer argued that it was not bound to extend LTD coverage beyond age 65 and, alternatively, that the Union was estopped from enforcing Article 13.01(a) because the Employer had long eliminated LTD coverage at age 65.

Decision

The arbitrator allowed the grievance. She held that the Employer breached Article 13.01(a) by relying on age-based restrictions in its insurance carrier’s plan instead of the HOODIP booklet.

The arbitrator found that Article 13.01(a) required the Employer to provide LTD coverage in accordance with HOODIP, allowing the grievor’s LTD application to be considered because he had more than 10 years of service. The Employer’s lack of direct participation in central bargaining did not alter the application of the centrally bargained language.

The estoppel argument also failed. The Employer had to prove that the practice of denying LTD coverage after age 65 was open, known, and accepted by the Union, and that the Employer relied on that practice to its detriment. The evidence did not show that the Union knew of or accepted the practice.

The arbitrator also found insufficient evidence of detrimental reliance. The Employer did not provide evidence showing the likely cost impact or the value of any lost bargaining opportunity.

The arbitrator ordered that the grievor’s LTD application be considered and preserved the Union’s right to make further arguments if the application was denied.