View cases - Stewart McKelvey

Page: 53permissive provision in the CHRA that allows mandatory retirement where the retirement agematches the “normal age of retirement” for similar positions. Whether the means chosen to attainthe objectives of paragraph 15(1)(c) can still be shown to be rationally connected to the preservationof socially desirable employment regimes in light of current social science evidence is anotherquestion altogether, one that properly forms part of the proportionality analysis.[203] Similarly, the aging of the workforce and the fact that many individuals may want or need tocontinue working are matters that should properly form part of the minimal impairment analysis.2011 FC 120 (CanLII)These matters also factor into the assessment of whether there is proportionality between thedeleterious effects of the legislation and its salutary objectives.[204] Having concluded that Parliament’s objectives in enacting paragraph 15(1)(c) of the CHRAare still pressing and substantial, it remains to be determined whether the means employed byParliament to achieve this objective are proportional, having regard to the remaining elements of theOakes test.iv)The Proportionality Component of the Oakes Test[205] Once the objectives of the legislation in issue have been identified and are determined to bepressing and substantial, the impugned law is then subjected to the proportionality test. Thisassesses whether the means chosen by Parliament to achieve its objectives are proportional orappropriate to the ends. Context infuses every aspect of this component of the Oakes test: HealthServices and Support - Facilities Subsector Bargaining Assn. v. British Columbia, 2007 SCC 27,[2007] S.C.J. No. 27, at para. 195.