Harrison v. University of British Columbia

Harrison v. University of British Columbia

Majority (La Forest/Dickson/Gonthier) held the Charter did not apply to UBC because governmental control over core university functions was insufficient to render UBC 'government' under s.32; accordingly the university's mandatory retirement policy was not subject to s.15 review. The Court nonetheless found the statutory definition of 'age' in s.1 of the British Columbia Human Rights Act violated s.15(1) but was a reasonable limit saved by s.1.

Citation
[1990] 3 SCR 451
Parties
Appellant, Cross‑respondent: University of British Columbia; Respondent, Cross‑appellant: John R. Connell; Respondent, Cross‑appellant: Robert Cameron Harrison; Intervener: Attorney General of Canada; Intervener: Attorney General for Ontario; Intervener: Attorney General of Nova Scotia; Intervener: Attorney General of British Columbia
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
6 December 1990
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Law – Charter Challenge to Mandatory Retirement and Human Rights Act / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the British Columbia Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed; cross‑appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Applicability of Charter to Public Universities, Age Discrimination, Mandatory Retirement, Section 15 Equality Analysis, Section 1 Justification, Statutory Definition of Age in Human Rights Act
Source Language
English
Constitutional Law Charter of Rights Employment Law Human Rights Law Applicability of Charter to Public Universities Age Discrimination Mandatory Retirement Section 15 Equality Analysis +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

University of British Columbia

Appellant, Cross‑respondent

John R. Connell

Respondent, Cross‑appellant

Robert Cameron Harrison

Respondent, Cross‑appellant

Attorney General of Canada

Intervener

Attorney General for Ontario

Intervener

Attorney General of Nova Scotia

Intervener

Attorney General of British Columbia

Intervener

Procedural Posture

Constitutional Law – Charter Challenge to Mandatory Retirement and Human Rights Act / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the British Columbia Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms applies to the University of British Columbia and its mandatory retirement policy
  2. 2 Whether the university's mandatory retirement policy contravenes s.15(1) of the Charter as age discrimination
  3. 3 Whether any contravention is demonstrably justified under s.1 of the Charter

Ratio Decidendi

Majority (La Forest/Dickson/Gonthier) held the Charter did not apply to UBC because governmental control over core university functions was insufficient to render UBC 'government' under s.32; accordingly the university's mandatory retirement policy was not subject to s.15 review. The Court nonetheless found the statutory definition of 'age' in s.1 of the British Columbia Human Rights Act violated s.15(1) but was a reasonable limit saved by s.1.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; cross‑appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal allowed with costs (majority opinion of Dickson C.J., La Forest and Gonthier JJ.); cross‑appeal dismissed with costs (Wilson J. dissenting)
  • Declaration that the definition of "age" in s.1 of the British Columbia Human Rights Act violates s.15(1) (majority found the provision nonetheless justified under s.1)