View cases - Stewart McKelvey

Page: 45d) Bell v. Canada (Canadian Human Rights Commission); Cooper v. Canada (CanadianHuman Rights Commission)[174] Before leaving this issue, there is one other post-McKinney decision that bears comment.This is the decision of the Supreme Court in Bell v. Canada (Canadian Human RightsCommission); Cooper v. Canada (Canadian Human Rights Commission), [1996] S.C.J. No. 115(“Bell and Cooper”).[175] Bell and Cooper is not technically a mandatory retirement decision, inasmuch as the issue2011 FC 120 (CanLII)before the Supreme Court was whether either the Canadian Human Rights Commission or theTribunal had jurisdiction to consider the constitutional validity of a provision of the CHRA.[176] What is noteworthy, however, is that the statutory provision at issue in Bell and Cooper wasparagraph 15(1)(c) of the Act, and that the case arose in the context of human rights complaintsbrought by two former Canadian Airlines pilots. Messrs. Bell and Cooper alleged that they had beenthe victims of age discrimination when they were forced to retire from Canadian Airlines at the ageof 60, in accordance with the provisions of their collective agreement.[177] The human rights complaints were investigated by the Commission, and the investigatorfound that 60 was the normal age of retirement for airline pilots. However, before a decision couldbe made by the Commission with respect to the complaints, the Supreme Court released its decisionin McKinney. The Commission subsequently advised the complainants that a Tribunal inquiry intotheir complaints was not warranted, and that the Commission was bound by McKinney.