View cases - Stewart McKelvey

Page: 66[251] Dr. Kesselman confirmed Justice L’Heureux-Dubé’s observation in McKinney that thegroup of employees who will want and need to continue working will be disproportionately madeup of women who may have entered the workforce late, or who may have taken time away from thepaid workforce because of family responsibilities. Recent immigrants will also bedisproportionately negatively affected by mandatory retirement policies because of their late entryinto the Canadian workforce. Both groups may be unable to accumulate the necessary pensionableearnings as to allow them to retire with the financial security available to others.2011 FC 120 (CanLII)[252] Dr. Kesselman points out that people who want or need to continue working will also facedifficulties obtaining alternate employment after their forced retirement because of societal attitudestowards older workers, and because it may be uneconomical for new employers to provide themwith the necessary training. These negative financial consequences may be all the more severe forwomen, because of their longer life expectancy.[253] According to Dr. Kesselman, the second flaw in the traditional justification for mandatoryretirement relates to the benefits that it purportedly confers on both employers and employees.[254] Mandatory retirement is said to benefit younger workers because it frees up jobs. However,Dr. Kesselman points out that Canada is currently facing a shortage of skilled workers. As aconsequence, the economy would actually benefit from experienced older workers beingencouraged to continue working.[255] Moreover, Dr. Kesselman says that experience has shown that the number of workers who