The B.C. Human Rights Tribunal has shot down a former Bodwell High School teacher’s attempt to get paid child benefits, despite not having any children of his own.
Ben Nelson filed a human rights complaint alleging the North Vancouver private school’s policy to pay an extra benefit to teachers for every dependent child they have amounted to discrimination based on family status, which is barred by the Human Rights Code.
Acknowledging that raising and educating children is becoming more and more costly, the private boarding school on Harbourside Drive began offering teachers and staff who worked there $1,200 per year per child up to the age of 17 in 2010.
But Nelson, who worked at the school from 2009 to 2014 and did not have any kids, argued it was unfair that the benefit was only made available to people who were primary guardians, and that it was akin to paying him a lower wage based on his family status.
“Mr. Nelson claims that he felt belittled because he did not earn as much as the others, even those who had been there a shorter time,” tribunal member Catherine McCreary wrote in her summary of the arguments. “He says it was unfair. He says he tried to raise the issue with his co-workers but he says he was belittled, harassed and humiliated for raising it. He says it was the most stressful time of his life. In his testimony, Mr. Nelson claimed that it was not his intention to stop the (child benefit scheme); he just wanted to receive a payment too.”
While governments may pass legislation aimed to benefit one group over another for the overall benefit of society, the private sector has an obligation to follow the Human Rights Code, Nelson argued.
Being young, single and male were generally not characteristics that attract discrimination McCreary noted, although she conceded there was a distinction in the benefits he was entitled to from his work.
Bodwell’s lawyer, however, argued that Nelson was compensated for his work in the same amount and in the same way as his fellow employees, and that child bonus was not discrimination because the money ultimately goes to benefit the children.
“Bodwell argues that everyone is eligible to obtain the benefit to assist with child rearing and it is not associated with the employee’s salary or the work performed,” McCreary wrote.
Ultimately, McCreary sided with Bodwell.
“I agree with the position urged by Bodwell ... that it has long been established in Canadian law that differential treatment alone is not sufficient to establish discrimination,” she wrote. “It appears to me that Mr. Nelson’s exclusion from the benefit is justified in that he has not incurred the costs that the benefit is designed to offset. He is therefore not qualified. The lack of qualification for the benefit does not amount to discrimination,” she wrote.
