View cases - Stewart McKelvey

Page: 50requires a consideration of whether the measures adopted have been carefully designed to achievethe objective in question. Paragraph 15(1)(c) of the CHRA is not restricted to the airline industry,and while evidence relating to the specific situation of Air Canada pilots may “serve as an exampleto demonstrate the reasonableness of the objectives, it must not be confused with those objectives”:McKinney, at para. 91.[194] With these principles in mind, I now turn to consider paragraph 15(1)(c) of the CHRA inlight of the Oakes test.2011 FC 120 (CanLII)ii)What are the Objectives of Paragraph 15(1)(c) of the CHRA?[195] The first element of the Oakes test requires the Court to identify the objectives of thelegislative provision in question. I identified the objectives of paragraph 15(1)(c) of the CanadianHuman Rights Act in Vilven #1 in the following terms:[243] The Tribunal described the purpose of paragraph 15(1)(c) ofthe Canadian Human Rights Act as being “to strike a balancebetween the need for protection against age discrimination and thedesirability of those in the workplace to bargain for and organizetheir own terms of employment …” : at para. 98.[244] The Tribunal’s description of the purpose of the provision isaccurate, as far as it goes. A more fulsome description of thepurpose of the impugned legislation was provided by the arbitrator inthe CKY-TV case cited earlier. In this regard, the arbitrator observedthat the legislative objective underlying paragraph 15(1)(c) of the Act“was to protect a longstanding employment regime”.[245] Referring to the comments of Minister Basford cited earlier inthese reasons, the arbitrator noted that the Minister had madereference to the “‘many complex social and economic factors’involved in mandatory retirement”, leading the arbitrator to concludethat “the government's stated preference was to continue thetraditional approach whereby the issue in the private sector was