View cases - Stewart McKelvey

Page: 5[17] Mr. Kelly turned 60 on April 30, 2005, and was forced to retire from Air Canada on May 1,2005. As was the case with Mr. Vilven, there was no issue as to Mr. Kelly’s capacity to fly safely,and the parties acknowledge that the only reason for the termination of his employment was theapplication of the mandatory retirement provisions found in the governing pension plan andcollective agreement.[18] Like Mr. Vilven, Mr. Kelly is entitled to receive substantial pension benefits for the rest ofhis life.2011 FC 120 (CanLII)[19] Mr. Kelly was also able to continue his flying career after leaving Air Canada. He initiallyworked on contract as a First Officer with Skyservice Airlines. At the time of the original Tribunalhearing, he was working for Skyservice as a Captain and Pilot-in-command, flying routes, includinginternational routes, on Boeing 757’s.III.The Human Rights Complaints[20] Mr. Vilven filed his complaint against Air Canada with the Canadian Human RightsCommission in August of 2004. His complaint asserted that by forcing him to retire at age 60, AirCanada violated sections 7 and 10 of the CHRA. The full text of the relevant statutory provisions isattached as an appendix to these reasons.[21] Mr. Kelly’s human rights complaint was filed on March 31, 2006 and was brought againstboth Air Canada and ACPA. His complaint alleged discrimination on the basis of age, contrary tothe provisions of sections 7, 9 and 10 of the Act.