View cases - Stewart McKelvey

Page: 54[206] At this stage of the analysis, the objectives of the legislation are to be balanced against “thenature of the right it violates, the extent of the infringement and the degree to which the limitationfurthers other rights or policies of importance in a free and democratic society”: Stoffman, at para.50, per Justice Wilson dissenting, but not on this point.[207] Put another way, the task for the Court at this stage of the inquiry is to determine whetherimpugned legislation is “carefully designed, or rationally connected, to the objective”. Legislation2011 FC 120 (CanLII)“must impair the right in issue as little as possible”, and the effect of the legislation “must not soseverely trench on individual or group rights that the legislative objective, albeit important, isnevertheless outweighed by the abridgment of rights”: see R. v. Edwards Books, above, at para.117.v) Rational Connection[208] The first question, then, is whether there is a rational connection between the legislativeobjective and the provision in the CHRA that permits mandatory retirement at the “normal age ofretirement” for similar positions.[209] As Chief Justice Dickson observed in Canada (Human Rights Commission) v. Taylor,[1990] 3 S.C.R. 892, [1990] S.C.J. No. 129, “... as long as the challenged provision can be said tofurther in a general way an important government aim it cannot be seen as irrational”: at para. 56,emphasis added.