View cases - Stewart McKelvey

Page: 100agreement would affect other Air Canada pilots, it was also appropriate for the Tribunal to examinethe issue of undue hardship on a going-forward basis, taking into account the subsequent changes tothe ICAO standards.[385] Such a forward-looking examination was also necessitated by the fact that Messrs. Vilvenand Kelly were seeking reinstatement into the positions that they would have held, had they notbeen required to retire at age 60.2011 FC 120 (CanLII)E. Factors to Consider in Relation to the Issue of Accommodation[386] Subsection 15(2) of the CHRA provides that in order to establish the existence of a bona fideoccupational requirement or justification, “it must be established that accommodation of the needsof an individual or a class of individuals affected would impose undue hardship on the person whowould have to accommodate those needs, considering health, safety and cost”. [emphasis added].[387] In assessing whether Air Canada could accommodate pilots over the age of 60, the Tribunaldetermined that it could look at matters other than health, safety and cost. The Tribunal observedthat in Meiorin, the Supreme Court indicated that the factors to be considered in determiningwhether accommodation imposes undue hardship are not entrenched, unless they are expresslyincluded or excluded by statute: Tribunal decision #2, at para. 78, citing Meiorin, at para. 63.[388] The Tribunal further observed that in McGill University Health Centre, above, the SupremeCourt emphasized that the factors that will support a finding of undue hardship should be appliedwith flexibility and common sense. The Court identified the cost of the possible accommodation,