View cases - Stewart McKelvey

(ii) The degree of correspondence between the impugned law and the actual needs, circumstances,and capacities of the individual or group[279] As the Supreme Court observed in Kapp, this factor relates to the issue of stereotyping: seeparagraph 23.[280] The Supreme Court further noted in Law that both Eaton v. Brant County Board ofEducation, [1997] 1 S.C.R. 241 and Andrews make the point that “legislation which takes intoaccount the actual needs, capacity, or circumstances of the claimant and others with similar traits in amanner that respects their value as human beings and members of Canadian society will be less likelyto have a negative effect on human dignity”: see Law, at paragraph 70.[281] Paragraph 15(1)(c) draws a distinction between those who may claim the protection of theCanadian Human Rights Act and those who may not, based upon the normal age of retirement forsimilar positions. Individuals who are involuntarily retired after reaching the normal age of retirementfor positions similar are thus deprived of protection from age discrimination, regardless of their ownindividual needs, circumstances, or capacities. Indeed, there is no suggestion in this case that eitherMr. Vilven or Mr. Kelly was not fully qualified or capable of continuing to work safely as a pilot forAir Canada.2009 FC 367 (CanLII)[282] Moreover, paragraph 15(1)(c) of the Act takes no account of the needs, circumstances orcapacities of older workers, as a group. As there is no correspondence between the impugned law andthe actual needs, circumstances, and capacities of the disadvantaged group, this contextual factor alsofavours a finding that paragraph 15(1)(c) of the Canadian Human Rights Act violates subsection15(1) of the Charter.(iii) Does the law have an ameliorative purpose or effect?[283] The purpose of subsection 15(1) of the Charter is “not only to prevent discrimination by theattribution of stereotypical characteristics to individuals, but also to ameliorate the position of groupswithin Canadian society who have suffered disadvantage by exclusion from mainstream society”:Eaton, cited previously, at paragraph 66.[284] To this end, the Supreme Court observed in Law that legislation that has an ameliorativepurpose, or effects that accord with the purpose of subsection 15(1) of the Charter, “will likely notviolate the human dignity of more advantaged individuals where the exclusion of these moreadvantaged individuals largely corresponds to the greater need or the different circumstancesexperienced by the disadvantaged group being targeted by the legislation”: Law, at paragraph 72.[285] The purpose of paragraph 15(1)(c) of the Canadian Human Rights Act was discussed earlierin these reasons. ACPA has not suggested that the provision has any ameliorative purpose.[286] To the extent that Air Canada has argued that the provision has the effect of freeing uppositions for younger workers as older workers are forced to retire, there has been no suggestion that“younger workers” constitute a disadvantaged group who are being targeted by the legislation.[287] Moreover, as the Supreme Court observed in McKinney, legislation that has as its objectivethe forcible retirement of older workers in order to make way for younger workers would be in itselfdiscriminatory “since it assumes that the continued employment of some individuals is less importantto those individuals, and of less value to society at large, than is the employment of other individuals,solely on the basis of age”: at page 303.[288] Furthermore, there is evidence to suggest that the practice of mandatory retirement has anadverse differential effect on individuals who enter the workforce later in life. This is because of theinability of these individuals to accrue sufficient pension benefits over the course of their careers, and