View cases - Stewart McKelvey

Page: 90[343] Indeed, the majority in McKinney observed that “In a work-oriented society, work isinextricably tied to the individual's self-identity and self-worth”: at para. 93. With this in mind,Justice La Forest went on to draw a link between mandatory retirement and the loss of anindividual’s self-worth, identity and emotional well-being, stating that “Mandatory retirement takesthis away, on the basis of a personal characteristic attributed to an individual solely because of hisassociation with a group”: McKinney, at para. 52.2011 FC 120 (CanLII)[344] There are other deleterious effects associated with paragraph 15(1)(c) of the CHRA. Unlikethe situation facing the Supreme Court in McKinney and Harrison, Parliament has not itself chosenwhat the appropriate age of retirement should be for federally-regulated employees. Instead, it hasleft it to private parties to decide what the “normal age of retirement” should be for specific types ofpositions. As was explained earlier, this can create uncertainty as to the scope of employees’ rightsunder the CHRA, as it may be very difficult for an individual to ascertain exactly what the normalage of retirement is for his or her particular type of position.[345] There is no doubt that collective bargaining is itself a Charter value, and that this is aconsideration that must be weighed in the mix. However, while a mandatory age of retirement maybe freely negotiated in some cases through the collective bargaining process in exchange for otheremployment benefits, paragraph 15(1)(c) of the CHRA does not require that this be so.[346] Moreover, paragraph 15(1)(c) does not just permit the unilateral imposition of mandatoryretirement by employers on unwilling employees, it also allows for the dominant player in an