View cases - Stewart McKelvey

Page: 17result. Justices Wilson and L’Heureux-Dubé each wrote dissenting judgments disagreeing with themajority as to whether subsection 9(a) of the Code could be justified under section 1.[65] Justice La Forest began by reviewing the history and role of mandatory retirement inCanada. He observed that by 1970, public and private pension plans had been established toprovide income security after the age of 65 and that as of 1990, mandatory retirement was “part ofthe very fabric of the organization of the labour market in this country”: at para. 84.2011 FC 120 (CanLII)[66] The objectives of the legislation were described by Justice La Forest as being an effort tobalance the Legislature’s concern for denying protection beyond age 65 against the fear that such achange could result in delayed retirement and delayed benefits for older workers. Concern was alsoexpressed as to the potential impact that a change would have for labour markets and pensions. InJustice La Forest’s view, these objectives were pressing and substantial.[67] The majority also found that subsection 9(a) of the Code was rationally connected to theseobjectives. In this regard, Justice La Forest observed that “there is nothing irrational in a systemthat permits those in the private sector to determine for themselves the age of retirement suitable to aparticular area of activity”: at para. 101.[68] In relation to the issue of minimal impairment, Justice La Forest noted that where theLegislature was faced with competing socio-economic theories and social science evidence, it wasentitled to choose between them and to proceed cautiously in effecting change. The question for theCourt was whether the government had a reasonable basis for concluding that the legislation