View cases - Stewart McKelvey

Page: 38[148] There have been developments in both public policy and non-Charter human rightsjurisprudence that further call into question the basis for the Supreme Court decisions in McKinneyand related cases.[149] Numerous studies have been carried out since McKinney with respect to the effects ofabolishing mandatory retirement in Canada. Indeed, the author of the majority decision inMcKinney - Justice La Forest himself - examined the issue in his role as Chair of the CanadianHuman Rights Act Review Panel. This Panel recommended 10 years ago that there should no2011 FC 120 (CanLII)longer be blanket exemptions for mandatory retirement policies in the Canadian Human Rights Act:see the Report of the Canadian Human Rights Act Review Panel, Promoting Equality: A NewVision, (Ottawa: Canadian Human Rights Act Review Panel, June 2000), at p.119.[150] While recognizing that further study was required in order to develop alternatives tomandatory retirement, the Report of the Canadian Human Rights Act Review Panel emphasized thatsuch studies should keep equality issues in mind. Significantly, the Report says that “Employersshould not be able to justify forcing someone to retire simply because this has been the normal ageof retirement for similar jobs” (emphasis added). According to the authors, “This is a very arbitraryapproach that incorporates the types of historical assumptions that human rights legislation issupposed to eliminate”: at p.121.[151] The Report does accept that mandatory retirement may be justified in certain workplaces,citing the Canadian Forces as an example. However, it recommends that “In the absence of blanket