View cases - Stewart McKelvey

Page: 55[210] Justice Wilson observed in her dissenting opinion in Stoffman that the rational connectionelement of the proportionality test is meant to “engage the Court in an examination of whethergovernment is proceeding logically in the pursuit of its aims”. She noted that “all the rationalconnection branch of s. 1 requires is a demonstration that there is some logical connection, howeverslight, between the objective and the means by which it is sought to be achieved” [emphasis added].She did, however, go on to note that “the quality and extent of the connection becomes crucial” inrelation to the last two elements of the Oakes test: all quotes at para.118.2011 FC 120 (CanLII)[211] The Supreme Court has recently stated that the party invoking section 1 of the Charter mustshow that it is “reasonable to suppose that the limit may further the goal, not that it will do so.”:Alberta v. Hutterian Brethren of Wilson Colony, 2009 SCC 37, [2009] 2 S.C.R. 567, at para. 48,emphasis added.[212] In this case, the Tribunal noted my observation in Vilven #1 that the ‘normal age ofretirement’ rule in paragraph 15(1)(c) allows a dominant player in an industry to set the mandatoryretirement age for the entire industry. According to the Tribunal, the result is that employees insmaller companies, who have not negotiated mandatory retirement in exchange for wage andpension benefits, could still be subject to the mandatory retirement age set by the dominant industryplayer: at paras. 54-56.[213] The Tribunal concluded that the ‘normal age of retirement’ criterion was not rationallyconnected to the goal of allowing for negotiated mandatory retirement, as it permitted mandatory