View cases - Stewart McKelvey

Page: 82employment arrangements involving seniority and deferred compensation systems. In his view, theconcern should be for younger workers. He testified that “I don't think the baby-boomers need anymore benefits, they have done extremely well. I think we should be more concerned about thepeople who follow behind them and how they are going to do”: transcript, at p.1542.[313] I would first note that there has been no suggestion that “younger workers” constitute ahistorically disadvantaged group who are being targeted by the legislation. Moreover, the SupremeCourt held in McKinney that the plight of younger workers was a matter that should not be accorded2011 FC 120 (CanLII)a central role in the debate on mandatory retirement: at para.102.[314] Justice La Forest observed that if a free and democratic society’s values include respect forthe inherent dignity of the individual and a commitment to social justice and equality, then forcingolder workers to retire in order to free up positions for younger workers would itself bediscriminatory. This is because “it assumes that the continued employment of some individuals isless important to those individuals, and of less value to society at large, than is the employment ofother individuals, solely on the basis of age”: McKinney, at para. 97.[315] Furthermore, Dr. Carmichael himself conceded that the abolition of mandatory retirementwould not significantly change the age at which most individuals would choose to retire, and that itwould have little impact on the average age of retirement in the economy as a whole. As a result, thenumber of employment opportunities for younger workers would not be greatly affected by theabolition of mandatory retirement.