View cases - Stewart McKelvey

Page: 72need the money. Those who would lose out would be younger men and women, as well as thosewho entered the workforce later in life. According to Dr. Carmichael, there are better ways toaddress the plight of this latter group, such as financial support and the recognition of foreigncredentials for immigrants.[275] Dr. Carmichael agrees with Dr. Kesselman that abolishing mandatory retirement will nothave a major impact on the average age of retirement in the economy as a whole, as mostindividuals will choose to retire at the same age as would otherwise have been imposed upon them.2011 FC 120 (CanLII)It could, however, have a more significant impact in relation to airline pilots, given their high rate ofpay and significant level of job satisfaction.[276] Dr. Carmichael also agrees with Dr. Kesselman that the costs associated with theelimination of mandatory retirement would be “relatively small”: transcript, at p.1524.[277] It was evident from the cross-examination of Dr. Carmichael that the philosophicalunderpinning of his opinion is his belief that mandatory retirement is something that is “freelynegotiated” by knowledgeable individuals. Indeed, Dr. Carmichael stated that he “would alwayssupport something that had been freely negotiated”: transcript, at p.1537.[278] Dr. Carmichael conceded that an agreement between two groups could cause hardship tothird parties, and that society may legitimately refuse to enforce such agreements. However, he saysthat no third parties are hurt when an employer and a union negotiate a collective agreement thatinvolves mandatory retirement. Workers enter into arrangements that positively affect their own