View cases - Stewart McKelvey

Page: 57considerations, but the place for such considerations to be taken into account is in relation to thesecond and third elements of the Oakes proportionality test, to which I now turn.vi) Minimal Impairment[218] The next stage of the Oakes analysis requires the Court to examine whether paragraph15(1)(c) of the CHRA impairs the Charter rights of workers over the normal age of retirement fortheir type of position minimally or “as little as possible”: R. v. Edwards Books, above, at para. 117.2011 FC 120 (CanLII)a) The Applicable Legal Principles[219] As the Supreme Court observed in Health Services and Support, the contextual factorsrelevant to a particular case affect the overall degree of deference to be afforded to the governmentin determining whether the legislative measures in issue are demonstrably justified: at para. 195.Greater deference should be shown to Parliament where the Court is examining a legislativeprovision that attempts to strike a balance between the claims of competing groups on the basis ofconflicting social science evidence, as opposed to cases involving a contest between an individualand the State: see Irwin Toy Ltd., above, at para. 79 and RJR-MacDonald, above, at para. 135.[220] When dealing with such polycentric issues, “considerable flexibility must be accorded to thegovernment to choose between various alternatives”: Tétreault-Gadoury v. Canada (Employmentand Immigration Commission), [1991] 2 S.C.R. 222, [1991] S.C.J. No. 41, at para. 47. This isespecially so when dealing with policy issues in the field of labour relations, which are generallybest left to the political process: R. v. Advance Cutting & Coring Ltd., 2001 SCC 70, [2001] 3S.C.R. 209, at para. 257.