View cases - Stewart McKelvey

Page: 8Tribunal’s decision as it related to the Charter issue, and remitted the matter to the Tribunal for it todetermine whether paragraph 15(1)(c) of the Act could be demonstrably justified as a reasonablelimit in a free and democratic society: Vilven #1, at para. 340.[30] In the event that the Tribunal determined that paragraph 15(1)(c) of the CHRA was notsaved under section 1 of the Charter, I directed that it address the merits of Messrs. Vilven andKelly’s human rights complaints. This would require the Tribunal to consider Air Canada’sargument that requiring that all of its pilots be younger than 60 constituted a bona fide occupational2011 FC 120 (CanLII)requirement within the meaning of paragraph 15(1)(a) of the CHRA: Vilven #1, at para. 341.V. The Tribunal’s Second Decision[31] In August of 2009, the Tribunal issued a second decision with respect to Messrs. Vilven andKelly’s human rights complaints: Vilven v. Air Canada; Kelly v. Air Canada and Air Canada PilotsAssociation, 2009 CHRT 24 (Tribunal decision #2).[32] In assessing whether paragraph 15(1)(c) of the CHRA was saved under section 1 of theCharter, the Tribunal applied the test articulated by the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Oakes,[1986] 1 S.C.R. 103, [1986] S.C.J. No. 7. The Oakes test requires that two criteria be satisfied: theobjective of the law must relate to a societal concern that is “pressing and substantial”, and themeans used to attain the objective must be “proportional”.[33] The Tribunal noted that in order to be proportional, the measures selected “must berationally connected to the objective and should impair as little as possible the right or freedom in