View cases - Stewart McKelvey

Page: 87[330] This analysis involves many of the same considerations that were discussed in connectionwith the issue of minimal impairment, albeit through the lens described in Thomson NewspapersCo.: see McKinney, at para. 126.[331] The Tribunal found that allowing the negotiation of mandatory retirement in the workplaceprovides “a powerful bargaining chip” for unions and employees. It allows them to negotiate “anumber of important benefits including deferred compensation, the equitable distribution of benefitsand job advancement opportunities”. According to the Tribunal, mandatory retirement also “allows2011 FC 120 (CanLII)employers to plan for the flow of labour into a workplace, to manage wage bills and to plan theirfinancial obligations: Tribunal decision #2, at para. 66.[332] At the same time, the Tribunal found that depriving individuals over the normal age ofretirement of the protection of the CHRA produced significant deleterious effects that outweighedthe benefits generated by paragraph 15(1)(c) of the CHRA: Tribunal decision #2, at paras. 65-70.[333] The Tribunal noted that Dr. Kesselman and Dr. Carmichael agreed that mandatoryretirement had a particularly negative impact on people who needed to work past the normal age ofretirement - a group predominantly made up of women and immigrants. These individuals faceconsiderable hardship when they are forced to retire, as they have not had the time to accumulatesignificant pension benefits. They may also face significant difficulties finding alternateemployment that fully utilizes their skills and experience. This results in “a heavy personal andfinancial blow to the individual”: see Tribunal decision #2, at para. 68.