View cases - Stewart McKelvey

Page: 14[53] There is also no dispute that the Oakes test applied by the Tribunal in deciding whetherparagraph 15(1)(c) of the CHRA can be justified under section 1 of the Charter is the appropriatetest.A. The Supreme Court of Canada’s Mandatory Retirement Jurisprudence[54] The issue of mandatory retirement has been considered by the Supreme Court of Canada ona number of occasions in the last 30 years. Before applying the Oakes test to the facts of this case,and in order to put that discussion into context, it is helpful to start by looking at what the Supreme2011 FC 120 (CanLII)Court has said on the subject.i) Ontario (Human Rights Commission) v. Etobicoke[55] Mandatory retirement first came before the Supreme Court in the early 1980’s in Ontario(Human Rights Commission) v. Etobicoke (Borough), [1982] 1 S.C.R. 202, [1982] S.C.J. No. 2.The appellants in that case were firemen employed by the Borough of Etobicoke. Each had filed acomplaint under the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1970, c. 318, because he had been forcedto retire at age 60 pursuant to the collective agreement governing the terms of his employment.[56] The Ontario Human Rights Code provided that the prohibition on age discrimination did notapply in cases where age could be shown to be a bona fide occupational requirement for the positionin question. A human rights Board of Inquiry determined that the municipality had not establishedthe existence of a bona fide occupational requirement for its firefighters. That decision wasoverturned by the Ontario Divisional Court, and the Divisional Court’s decision was subsequentlyconfirmed by the Ontario Court of Appeal.