View cases - Stewart McKelvey

[161] Similarly, Assistant Deputy Minister Strayer testified that [in Campbell, at paragraph 5482]:What clause 14(c) [now paragraph 15(1)(c)] means is that as long as the individual is obliged to retire at thesame age as everyone else in his kind of employment, then it would not be treated as a discriminatory act torequire him to retire. The problem is in knowing what to do to go beyond that. As the Minister says in hisstatement, public service employment, which is one of the largest areas of employment covered by the bill, isalready governed by law as far as the retirement age is concerned. As for the rest, I believe retirement is often amatter of collective bargaining, it is also a matter of personal negotiation, and as far as we could determine thenext best arrangement would be to somehow enable the commission to review what was a reasonable retirementage in that particular employment.[162] Clearly, at the time that the Canadian Human Rights Act was enacted, it was notcontemplated that the defence under paragraph 15(1)(c) of the Act would only be available wherethere was a binding rule in a given industry mandating retirement at a particular age.[163] The next question, then, is whether there was a normal, customary or standard age ofretirement for Canadian pilots flying aircraft of varying sizes and types, transporting passengers toboth domestic and international destinations, through Canadian and foreign airspace.2009 FC 367 (CanLII)(v) Was there a “normal age of retirement” for Canadian airline pilots?[164] As was noted earlier in these reasons, in addition to utilizing a normative approach to the“normal age of retirement” issue, the Tribunal also used an empirical approach in determining that 60was the normal age of retirement for airline pilots.[165] The Tribunal considered the statistical evidence presented at the hearing with respect toretirement ages for commercial airline pilots, both in Canada and around the world. Because theTribunal concluded that no Canadian airline apart from Air Canada would qualify as a “majorinternational carrier”, information regarding these airlines was not used to identify the normal age ofretirement for positions similar to those of Messrs. Vilven and Kelly.[166] The Tribunal found that complete data was available for less than half of the majorinternational airlines that were included in the survey. The 10 major international airlines for whichcomplete data was available collectively employed some 25 308 pilots. During the 2003–2005 period,80% of these pilots were required to retire at age 60 or younger. This led the Tribunal to concludethat 60 was the retirement age for the majority of positions similar to those of Messrs. Vilven andKelly, and was thus the “normal age of retirement” for the purposes of paragraph 15(1)(c) of theCanadian Human Rights Act. As a consequence, the Tribunal found that Air Canada’s mandatoryretirement policy did not amount to a discriminatory practice within the meaning of the Act.[167] As the Federal Court of Appeal observed in the Stevenson case, previously cited, theidentification of the “normal age of retirement” for the purposes of paragraph 15(1)(c) presents itsproblems: see paragraph 11. However, the approach taken by human rights tribunals has generallybeen based upon a number count of similar positions: see for example, Campbell and Prior, bothpreviously cited.[168] In Campbell, the Tribunal found 60 to be the normal age of retirement where approximately81% of Canadian flight attendants were required to retire by that age. In Prior, the fact that 60% ofCanadian freight checkers were subject to retirement at age 65 was deemed sufficient for a findingthat 65 was the “normal age of retirement” for such positions. A similar approach has been taken bylabour arbitrators: see CKY-TV v. Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada(Local 816) (Kenny Grievance) (2008), 175 L.A.C. (4th) 29.[169] Given that paragraph 15(1)(c) refers to the normal age of retirement for “employees workingin positions similar” to that occupied by a complainant, I agree with the Tribunal that thedetermination of the normal age of retirement requires a statistical analysis of the total number count