View cases - Stewart McKelvey

Page: 34[132] However, as the Ontario Superior Court observed in Bedford v. Canada (Attorney General),2010 ONSC 4264, [2010] O.J. No. 4057, while the Supreme Court of Canada has the power torevisit its earlier decisions, “lower courts must only do so in very limited circumstances”: at para.78.[133] As to what those limited circumstances may be, the Court in Bedford quoted comments inWakeford v. Canada (Attorney General) (2001), 81 C.R.R. (2d) 342, [2001] O.J. No. 390 (Ont. Sup.2011 FC 120 (CanLII)Ct.), aff'd (2001), 156 O.A.C. 385, leave to appeal to S.C.C. refused, [2002] S.C.C.A. No. 72.There, Justice Swinton stated that where a decision of the Supreme Court is squarely on point,“there must be some indication - either in the facts pleaded or in the decisions of the Supreme Court- that the prior decision may be open for reconsideration...: at para.14.[134] As was explained earlier, I am not persuaded that McKinney and the other Supreme Courtmandatory retirement jurisprudence is “squarely on point”. In any event, the Supreme Court clearlyindicated in McKinney that it did not intend that its judgment on the section 1 issue be the final wordon the subject.[135] Justice La Forest observed that “the ramifications of mandatory retirement on theorganization of the workplace and its impact on society generally are not matters capable of precisemeasurement”. He went on to state that “the effect of its removal by judicial fiat is even lesscertain”. He noted that decisions made in relation to such matters “must inevitably be the product of