View cases - Stewart McKelvey

Page: 92[351] For the reasons given in this case, I find that the Tribunal was correct in concluding that AirCanada and ACPA had not satisfied the onus on them to demonstrate that paragraph 15(1)(c) of theCHRA is saved under section 1 of the Charter. Air Canada and ACPA have not shown that thebroadly-worded exception to the otherwise discriminatory practice of mandatory retirementcontained in paragraph 15(1)(c) of the CHRA is a reasonable limit justifiable in a free anddemocratic society.IX. Is Age a Bona Fide Occupational Requirement for Air Canada Pilots?2011 FC 120 (CanLII)[352] Having concluded that paragraph 15(1)(c) of the CHRA does not provide Air Canada andACPA with a defence to Messrs. Vilven and Kelly’s human rights complaints, the next question iswhether the Tribunal’s finding that Air Canada had not established that being under 60 was a bonafide occupational requirement for its pilots was reasonable.A. Legal Principles Governing Bona Fide Occupational Requirements[353] Paragraph 15(1)(a) of the CHRA provides that it is not a discriminatory practice if “anyrefusal, exclusion, expulsion, suspension, limitation, specification or preference in relation to anyemployment is established by an employer to be based on a bona fide occupational requirement”.[354] The test to be applied for determining whether an employer has established a bona fideoccupational requirement is that articulated by the Supreme Court of Canada in Meiorin, above, atpara. 54.[355] That is, an employer must establish on a balance of probabilities that: