View cases - Stewart McKelvey

Page: 21[81] The majority decision held that because the facts, issues and constitutional questions inHarrison were similar to those considered in McKinney, Harrison was governed by that case. As aconsequence, Harrison adds little to the analysis. However, it does bear noting that Justices Wilsonand L’Heureux-Dubé once again dissented on the section 1 issue.iv) Douglas/Kwantlen Faculty Assn. v. Douglas College[82] The appeal in Douglas College involved another challenge to a mandatory retirement2011 FC 120 (CanLII)provision in a collective agreement. The case was disposed of on jurisdictional grounds, thequestion being whether the arbitrator had jurisdiction to decide Charter issues. The Courtdetermined that the arbitrator did indeed have jurisdiction to decide Charter issues. However, as thearbitrator had not considered whether the breach of section 15 of the Charter was justified undersection 1 of the Charter, the Court did not deal with this question.v) Stoffman v. Vancouver General Hospital[83] Stoffman involved a challenge brought by doctors with admitting privileges at theVancouver General Hospital. A hospital Medical Staff Regulation stipulated that doctors had toretire at the age of 65, unless they were able to demonstrate that they could offer something uniqueto the hospital.[84] The doctors were not hospital employees, and thus did not benefit from the protectionagainst age-based employment discrimination provided by the British Columbia Human Rights Act.