View cases - Stewart McKelvey

Page: 120ii)The Tribunal’s Finding Regarding the First Two Elements of the Meiorin Test[466] Messrs. Vilven and Kelly take issue with the Tribunal’s statement that they had concededthat the first two requirements of the Meiorin test had been satisfied: see Tribunal decision #2, atpara. 82. They contend they never conceded that the mandatory retirement provision of the AirCanada/ACPA collective agreement had been adopted for a rational purpose connected with theperformance of the job, in the honest and good faith belief that it was necessary to the fulfillment ofthis work-related objective. Indeed, Messrs. Vilven and Kelly have advanced a number ofarguments before this Court as to why the first two elements of the Meiorin test had not been2011 FC 120 (CanLII)satisfied by Air Canada.[467] A review of the record discloses that a concession with respect to the first two elements ofthe Meiorin test was made before the Tribunal by counsel for the Canadian Human RightsCommission: transcript, at p.1984. No such concession appears to have been made by either Mr.Vilven or Mr. Kelly, or by the interested party, the Fly Past 60 Coalition.[468] Complainants and the Commission have separate party status before the Tribunal: seesubsection 50(1) of the CHRA. Interested party status may also be granted to third parties by theTribunal: subsection 48.3(10). The Commission does not represent the interests of complainantsbefore the Tribunal. Rather, the Commission is statutorily mandated to take such position beforethe Tribunal as, “in its opinion, is in the public interest having regard to the nature of thecomplaint”: section 51. As a result, concessions made by the Commission are not binding on eitherthe complainants or on interested parties.