View cases - Stewart McKelvey

CITATION: VILVEN V. AIR CANADA, 2009 FC 367,[2010] 2 F.C.R. 189T-1674-07T-1678-07T-1680-07George Vilven (Applicant)v.Air Canada, Air Canada Pilots Association and Canadian Human Rights Commission(Respondents)Robert Neil Kelly (Applicant)v.T-1678-072009 FC 367 (CanLII)Air Canada, Air Canada Pilots Association and Canadian Human Rights Commission(Respondents)Canadian Human Rights Commission (Applicant)v.George Vilven, Robert Neil Kelly and Air Canada Pilots Association (Respondents)INDEXED AS: VILVEN V. AIR CANADA (F.C.)Federal Court, Mactavish J.—Ottawa, November 24, 25, 26, 27, 2008; April 9, 2009.T-1680-07Human Rights — Judicial review of Canadian Human Rights Tribunal’s dismissal of age-baseddiscrimination complaints — Pilots with Air Canada forced to retire from positions at 60 years of age —Tribunal finding 60 “normal age of retirement” for positions similar to those occupied by applicants at time ofretirement, as contemplated by Canadian Human Rights Act, s. 15(1)(c), termination of employment thus notamounting to discriminatory practice within meaning of Act — Tribunal also finding Act, s. 15(1)(c) notviolating equality rights provision under Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, s. 15(1) — Onus on AirCanada, Air Canada Pilots Association to establish applicants Vilven, Kelly (applicants) retired in accordancewith normal age of retirement for similar positions — Tribunal mischaracterizing essential features ofapplicants’ positions, choosing wrong comparator group — To establish s. 15(1)(c) defence, shared meaning ofEnglish, French versions thereof requiring age of retirement in issue be normal, customary, standard withinrelevant industry sector — Existence of binding rule mandating retirement at particular age not required —Determination of normal age of retirement requiring statistical analysis — Tribunal’s conclusion 60 normal ageof retirement for employees in positions similar to those occupied by applicants reasonable — Applicants’forced retirement not amounting to discriminatory practice within meaning of Act, s. 15(1)(c) — Fundamentalproblem with paragraph 15(1)(c): provision allowing for discrimination, as long as pervasive within industry —Remedy available under Charter, s. 15(1) — Act, s. 15(1)(c) denying older workers equal protection of law,perpetuating group disadvantage, prejudice — Only serving to perpetuate stereotypical view older workers lesscapable, deserving of recognition, value as human beings, members of Canadian society — Act, s. 15(1)(c)violating Charter, s. 15(1) — Applications in T-1674-07, T-1678-07 allowed; application in T-1680-07dismissed.Constitutional Law — Charter of Rights — Equality Rights — Constitutionality of limiting provision in humanrights legislation — Canadian Human Rights Act, s. 15(1)(c) providing termination of employment notdiscriminatory where person having reached normal age of retirement for employees working in similarpositions — Whether Act, s. 15(1)(c) violating Charter, s. 15(1) — S. 15(1)(c) denying workers over “normal