View cases - Stewart McKelvey

Page: 22The Supreme Court found that the doctors were also unable to claim the protection of the Charter,as hospitals were not part of government.[85] Even if the Charter had applied, the majority would have found that the discriminatorymandatory retirement Regulation would have been saved by section 1 for the reasons given inMcKinney. Justices Wilson, L'Heureux-Dubé and Cory dissented.vi) Dickason v. University of Alberta2011 FC 120 (CanLII)[86] Two years after rendering its decisions in McKinney and its companion cases, the issue ofmandatory retirement in the university setting was back before the Supreme Court in Dickason v.University of Alberta, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 1103, [1992] S.C.J. No. 76.[87] The issue in Dickason was whether McKinney fully decided “whether a mandatoryretirement policy in a private employment setting can be justified pursuant to the provisions of s.11.1 of the IRPA [Individual’s Rights Protection Act, R.S.A. 1980, c. I-2]?”: at para. 33. Onceagain, the majority and dissenting judgments revealed deep divisions within the Supreme Court onthis issue.[88] As in McKinney, the appellant in Dickason was a tenured professor who was forced to retireat age 65, in accordance with a clause in her collective agreement. Dr. Dickason filed a complaintwith the Alberta Human Rights Commission alleging that the mandatory retirement provision of thecollective agreement violated the IRPA.