View cases - Stewart McKelvey

Page: 39mandatory retirement defences in the Act, the government should require employers to justify theirmandatory retirement policies with a bona fide occupational requirement”: at pp.120-121.[152] The Report of the Canadian Human Rights Act Review Panel reflects the fact that societalattitudes towards age discrimination have evolved since McKinney was decided. As the OntarioSuperior Court observed in Assn. of Justices of the Peace of Ontario v. Ontario (Attorney General),(2008), 92 O.R. (3d) 16, [2008] O.J. No. 2131, (“Justices of the Peace”), “society’s understandingof age discrimination, prohibited by the Charter, has evolved to the extent that practices considered2011 FC 120 (CanLII)acceptable 20 years ago are now prohibited”: at para. 177.[153] In addition, post-McKinney Supreme Court of Canada human rights jurisprudence in thenon-Charter context has reinforced the need for employers to avoid generalized assumptions as tothe capacity of individual employees.[154] That is, in Meiorin, cited above, and British Columbia (Superintendent of Motor Vehicles) v.British Columbia (Council of Human Rights), [1999] 3 S.C.R. 868, [1999] S.C.J. No.73(“Grismer”), the Supreme Court restated the test for discrimination, and imported the duty toaccommodate into cases of direct discrimination under human rights codes.[155] In so doing, the Court emphasized the need for individualized assessments, in order to avoidstereotyping based upon proscribed grounds. In this regard, the Court stated that employers “mustaccommodate factors relating to the unique capabilities and inherent worth and dignity of everyindividual, up to the point of undue hardship”: Meiorin at para. 62.