View cases - Stewart McKelvey

Page: 26[100] Our legal system operates on the principle of stare decisis. That is, in the interest ofproviding certainty to the law, decisions of appellate courts are binding on trial courts and shouldordinarily be followed in cases involving similar facts.[101] While recognizing that Supreme Court of Canada decisions are unquestionably binding onboth the Tribunal and on this Court, there are four reasons why the Supreme Court’s decisions inMcKinney and its companion cases should not dictate the result of this case. These are:2011 FC 120 (CanLII)1. The significant differences between the legislative provisions inissue;2. The clear indication in McKinney that the Supreme Court did notintend that the decision be the final word on the subject ofmandatory retirement for all time;3. The differences in the evidentiary records that were before theSupreme Court and the Tribunal; and4. The developments in public policy that have occurred sinceMcKinney was decided.[102] Each of these reasons will be discussed in turn.i) The Differences Between the Legislative Provisions[103] While there are similarities between paragraph 15(1)(c) of the CHRA and the provisions ofthe Ontario and British Columbia human rights legislation that were at issue in McKinney andHarrison¸ there are also significant differences in the legislation.