View cases - Stewart McKelvey

Page: 77indeed freely negotiated, but also that it did not discriminate unfairly against individuals on the basisof a proscribed ground: at para. 39.[296] Moreover, as Justices L’Heureux-Dubé and McLachlin noted in Bell and Cooper, theinvolvement of unions in determining what will be a “normal age of retirement” does notautomatically guarantee that it is justifiable. They observed that “there may be many reasons why aunion does not take up a particular cause. The concern may be of interest only to a minority of itsmembers, or the union may have other more important issues on the bargaining table”: at para.107.2011 FC 120 (CanLII)[297] In this case, Dr. Carmichael and Dr. Kesselman agree that mandatory retirement provisionsin collective agreements such as that between Air Canada and ACPA have an adverse differentialimpact on both women and immigrants. Dr. Carmichael suggests that rather than limiting thefreedom of employers and employees to negotiate mandatory retirement, programs could bedesigned to compensate these groups for the financial disadvantages resulting from forcedretirement. However, as the Tribunal observed, not only is it questionable whether financial aidwould provide a sufficient degree of income security, more importantly, Dr. Carmichael’ssuggestion “does not address, and indeed may even exacerbate the loss of dignity and pride thatflows from being unemployed”: Tribunal decision #2, at para. 69.[298] By the time the Tribunal heard Messrs. Vilven and Kelly’s human rights complaints,mandatory retirement had been abolished in the Province of Ontario, and several other provincesonly allowed for compulsory retirement at a specified age in cases where employers coulddemonstrate that it was based on bona fide retirement or pension plans, or bona fide occupational