View cases - Stewart McKelvey

Page: 56retirement to be imposed upon workers without negotiation, as long as the retirement agecorresponded to the industry norm.[214] Keeping in mind Chief Justice Dickson’s admonition in Taylor that a legislative provisioncannot be seen to be irrational as long as it can be said to further an important government aim in ageneral way, I am satisfied that there is indeed a logical connection between paragraph 15(1)(c) ofthe CHRA and the objectives that it seeks to accomplish. I note that my conclusion in this regard isconsistent with the finding of the Manitoba Court of Queen’s Bench in CKY-TV: at para. 27.2011 FC 120 (CanLII)[215] Moreover, it is clear that in at least some workplaces, mandatory retirement is negotiatedthrough the collective bargaining process in exchange for wage, pension, and other benefits. To theextent that paragraph 15(1)(c) eliminates a legal barrier to mandatory retirement, it is rationallyconnected to the legislative objective of preserving socially desirable employment regimes that arebeneficial to both employers and employees.[216] As the Tribunal noted, there is a real question as to the extent to which mandatory retirementis a necessary and integral part of such labour market structures. However, the fact that mandatoryretirement may not be essential to the preservation of socially desirable employment regimes doesnot mean that paragraph 15(1)(c) of the CHRA fails the rational connection test, as mandatoryretirement is logically connected to the maintenance of such schemes: see McKinney, at para. 63.[217] As was noted earlier, the connection between impugned legislation and its objectives needonly be slight. The quality and extent of the connection are relevant, and indeed crucial