Sixteen estates were paid before the city tried to pull the plug
An Ontario arbitrator has ruled that the City of St. Catharines cannot stop paying an Accidental Death and Dismemberment (AD&D) benefit to the estates of retired firefighters who died from occupational diseases diagnosed after retirement, finding that the city's consistent payment practice since 2020 created a binding estoppel.
In a decision dated April 22, 2026, Arbitrator Lindsay Lawrence concluded the city is precluded from halting payments until the current collective agreement ends and the parties complete negotiations or interest arbitration for their next agreement. The interpretation issue, namely whether the agreement on its own terms requires payment, remains to be decided on the merits, with the arbitrator remaining seized.
When a quiet practice becomes a hard rule
The dispute centred on Article 12.03 of the collective agreement between the city and IAFF Local 485, which provides compulsory group life insurance for firefighters, except probationers, in an amount two times basic annual salary to the nearest $500, with an AD&D rider, with the city paying 100 per cent of the premiums.
A 2020 rights arbitration award by Arbitrator Brian Sheehan (the Cookson decision) determined AD&D benefits extend to firefighters diagnosed with an occupational disease while employed but retired at the time of death. Since that decision was issued on July 28, 2020, and up until May 2025, the city paid (or was in the process of paying) the benefit to the estates of all retired firefighters diagnosed post-retirement who had submitted a claim. The Agreed Statement of Facts identifies 16 such individuals.
In a May 29, 2025, letter sent after negotiations and well into the interest arbitration process for the 2024-2026 agreement, the city advised it would halt further payments to firefighters diagnosed post-retirement until it obtained "clarification of the [Cookson] decision or until this issue is otherwise resolved." On July 14, 2025, it confirmed that position. Two estates, those of Gord Lessard and Robert Barber, were refused payment.
A lost chance at the bargaining table
The Association argued the city's conduct was clear, consistent, and relied upon, and that it had lost the chance to grieve earlier or table proposals in bargaining. The arbitrator agreed, writing: "There is clear detriment in the form of a lost opportunity to bargain. Had the benefits not been paid consistently, the Association could have filed a grievance earlier and/or sought to negotiate either a clarification or a change to what the collective agreement required."
The city countered that its payments captured individuals not required to be paid under the agreement and reflected an overbroad application of Cookson it should be free to correct, and that it had no intention of altering the parties' legal positions. The city also warned that if estoppel were applied but its interpretation later proved correct, it would face a non-recoverable liability.
The arbitrator rejected the city's framing of intent, explaining that "intention" in the estoppel context means the intention that the conduct be relied upon, not that one party intended to act outside its strict legal rights. On the liability concern, she acknowledged payments not strictly required by the contract would result, but noted this is "in the very nature of the doctrine of equitable estoppel."
Where the ruling leaves the parties
The arbitrator emphasized that consistency of conduct, not the underlying contract debate, drove the outcome, stating: "What matters is that there has been an open, clear and consistent practice with respect to payment."
The city is precluded from halting AD&D payments to the estates of retired firefighters who died from an occupational disease diagnosed after retirement until the termination of the current collective agreement and until the parties have completed negotiations or interest arbitration for their next agreement.
The arbitrator remains seized with respect to interpretation and implementation of the award, the merits of the grievance, and any remaining issues, including the underlying question under Article 12.03.
