View cases - Stewart McKelvey

Page: 126memorandum of fact and law to seek declaratory relief. However, for the reasons given, I decline togrant the relief sought by the amendment.XI. Conclusion[490] For these reasons I have concluded that the finding of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunalthat paragraph 15(1)(c) of the CHRA is not a reasonable limit demonstrably justifiable in a free anddemocratic society as contemplated by section 1 of the Charter was correct. Consequently, ACPA’sapplication for judicial review is dismissed in its entirety. Air Canada’s application for judicial2011 FC 120 (CanLII)review is also dismissed, as it relates to the Charter issue.[491] The Tribunal’s finding that Air Canada had not established that being under the age of 60was a bona fide occupational requirement for its airline pilots at the time that Messrs. Vilven andKelly’s employment was terminated in 2003 and 2005 respectively was reasonable. However, theTribunal’s finding that Air Canada had not established that age was a bona fide occupationalrequirement for its pilots in light of the post-November 2006 ICAO standards was not reasonable.[492] As result, Air Canada’s application for judicial review as it relates to the bona fideoccupational requirement issue will be allowed in part. The question of whether Air Canada hasestablished that age was a bona fide occupational requirement for its airline pilots after Novemberof 2006 is remitted to the same panel of the Tribunal, if available, for re-determination on the basisof the existing record, in light of all three elements of the Meiorin test.