View cases - Stewart McKelvey

Page: 35a mix of conjecture, fragmentary knowledge, general experience and knowledge of the needs,aspirations and resources of society, and other components”: all quotes from McKinney at para. 104.[136] In discussing the expert evidence provided by labour economists with respect to thepotential consequences of abolishing mandatory retirement, Justice La Forest observed thatmandatory retirement could not be looked at in isolation, and that, according to the experts, “therepercussions of abolishing mandatory retirement would be felt ‘in all dimensions of the personnelfunction: hiring, training, dismissals, monitoring and evaluation, and compensation’”: at para. 109.2011 FC 120 (CanLII)Consequently, Justice La Forest stated that “it should not be altogether surprising that theLegislature opted for a cautious approach to the matter”: at para. 112.[137] However, in the very next paragraph, Justice La Forest went on to note that mandatoryretirement had been abolished in a number of jurisdictions, albeit by legislative choice rather thanjudicial fiat, and that the apprehended effects had not resulted. He observed that “we do not reallyknow what the ramifications of these new schemes will be and the evidence is that it will be some15 to 20 years before a reliable analysis can be made”: at para. 113, emphasis added.[138] Thus, Justice La Forest’s statement that he was “not prepared to say that the course adoptedby the Legislature […] is not one that reasonably balances the competing social demands which oursociety must address” was specifically made in the social and historical context of the early 1990’s:at para. 123. He clearly left the issue open for revisitation in the future, when reliable evidencebecame available as to what actually happened when mandatory retirement was abolished.