View cases - Stewart McKelvey

(2) Notwithstanding subsection (1), it is not a discriminatory practice for an employee organization to exclude,expel or suspend an individual from membership in the organization because that individual has reached thenormal age of retirement for individuals working in positions similar to the position of that individual.[Emphasis added.][142] The respondents submit that the language in the concluding portion of subsection 9(2) in theEnglish version of the Act is identical to that contained in the English version of paragraph 15(1)(c),whereas the French versions of the two provisions differ.[143] As a consequence, the respondents argue that in three of the four places in the Act wherereference is made to the retirement age for individuals working in positions similar to that of acomplainant, the term “normal” is used. This, they say, demonstrates that there is a shared meaningbetween the English and French versions of both subsection 9(2) and paragraph 15(1)(c), which givesthe words their most obvious, ordinary meaning and accords with the context and purpose of theenactment in which they occur.[144] Thus, the respondents say that all that is required is for the Tribunal to determine the usual orcustomary age of retirement for a particular group of individuals, and that a binding rule mandatingretirement at a specified age is not necessary for a defence under paragraph 15(1)(c) of the Act tosucceed.2009 FC 367 (CanLII)[145] Finally, the respondents point to comments made by the Minister of Justice and by theAssistant Deputy Minister of Justice for Policy and Planning prior to the enactment of the CanadianHuman Rights Act as evidence of the fact that Parliament did not intend that there would have to be abinding rule in place before the defence under paragraph 15(1)(c) of the Act could be available torespondents.[146] When addressing a question of statutory interpretation, the words of an Act are to be read intheir entire context, and in their grammatical and ordinary sense, harmoniously with the scheme ofthe Act, the object of the Act, and the intention of Parliament: see Rizzo & Rizzo Shoes Ltd. (Re),[1998] 1 S.C.R. 27, at paragraph 21, and see Ruth Sullivan, Sullivan on the Construction of Statutes,5th ed. (Markham, Ont.: LexisNexis Canada, 2008), at page 1.[147] Both the French and the English versions of federal legislation have equal authenticity, andneither is to be preferred over the other: see Official Languages Act, R.S.C., 1985 (4th Supp.), c. 31,section 13 and Reference re Manitoba Language Rights, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 721, at page 774.[148] Where the English and French versions of legislation do not say the same thing, a meaningthat is common to both ought to be adopted: see Sullivan on the Construction of Statutes, at page 100.That is, an interpretation reconciling the two versions is to be favoured, because it is assumed thatthis better reflects the work of a rational legislature: see Pierre-André Côté, The Interpretation ofLegislation in Canada, 3rd ed. (Scarborough, Ont.: Carswell, 2000), at pages 323–324 and 349.[149] Where a shared meaning has been identified, it may nonetheless be tested against otherindicators to ensure that it is the meaning intended by Parliament. The shared meaning may also berejected if there is another interpretation that is for some reason preferable: see Sullivan on theConstruction of Statutes, at pages 100–101.[150] In this case, the English version of paragraph 15(1)(c) speaks of the “normal” age ofretirement in force for a certain type of position. “Normal” is defined by the Concise OxfordDictionary of Current English, 9th ed. (Della Thompson, ed., Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995) as“conforming to a standard; regular, usual, typical”. Similarly, the Random House Webster’sUnabridged Dictionary, 2nd ed. (New York: Random House, 2001) defines “normal” as “conformingto the standard or the common type; usual, not abnormal; regular; natural.”