View cases - Stewart McKelvey

Page: 60legislatures have struck a different balance in relation to a complex set of competing values: citingMcKinney, at para. 123.[229] The task of the Tribunal was not, the applicants say, to step into the shoes of Parliament, andreweigh the pros and cons of mandatory retirement in light of the available social science evidence.Rather, the question for the Tribunal was whether the government had a reasonable basis forconcluding that the impugned legislation impaired the relevant right as little as possible, havingregard to the government’s pressing and substantial objectives: citing McKinney, at para.112, and2011 FC 120 (CanLII)Irwin Toy, at para. 81.[230] The applicants contend that the Tribunal also erred by failing to give due consideration tothe existence of the collective agreement freely negotiated between Air Canada and ACPA. Theypoint out that the Supreme Court recognized in Dickason that collective agreements authorizingmandatory retirement can represent carefully constructed, fairly negotiated bargains betweenemployer and employees, which can be indicative of the reasonableness of the practice.[231] Air Canada and ACPA point out that in Health Services and Support, the Supreme Courtaffirmed that values such as human dignity, equality, liberty, respect for the autonomy of the personand the enhancement of democracy are all complemented and promoted by collective bargaining: atpara. 81.[232] The applicants contend that the Tribunal disregarded the benefits conferred by the collectiveagreement and the fact that the agreement reflected Charter values, including dignity of the