Nedelec v. Rogers

Nedelec v. Rogers

The Federal Court held the CHRT reasonably chose the established strict statistical total-count methodology (as articulated in Vilven FC) to determine the 'normal age of retirement', rejected applicants' contention that s.15(1)(c) was obsolete or that lack of external comparators justified departing from precedent, and found applicants failed to provide the factual record or factors necessary to justify a different methodology; accordingly the judicial review application was dismissed.

Citation
2021 FC 191
Parties
Applicants: Gary Nedelec et al; Respondents: Eric William Rogers et al; Canadian Human Rights Commission; Air Canada; Air Canada Pilots Association
Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
2 March 2020
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review of Canadian Human Rights Tribunal Decision / Application for Judicial Review Dismissed (final Decision)
Outcome
Application for judicial review dismissed; costs awarded to Respondents
Legal Topics
Mandatory Retirement, Stare Decisis, Standard of Review (reasonableness), Section 15(1)(c) Canadian Human Rights Act, Normal Age of Retirement Methodology, Obsolescence of Statute, Onus of Proof, Costs
Source Language
English
Administrative Law Employment Law Human Rights Law Statutory Interpretation Mandatory Retirement Stare Decisis Standard of Review (reasonableness) Section 15(1)(c) Canadian Human Rights Act +4 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 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gary Nedelec et al

Applicants

Eric William Rogers et al; Canadian Human Rights Commission; Air Canada; Air Canada Pilots Association

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review of Canadian Human Rights Tribunal Decision / Application for Judicial Review Dismissed (final Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the CHRT erred by refusing to seriously consider submissions that s.15(1)(c) CHRA was obsolete in application
  2. 2 Whether the CHRT improperly fettered its discretion by treating prior Federal Court methodology (statistical analysis) as binding and thus foreclosing a normative methodology
  3. 3 Whether a strict statistical/empirical methodology to determine the normal age of retirement is consistent with Parliament's intent

Ratio Decidendi

The Federal Court held the CHRT reasonably chose the established strict statistical total-count methodology (as articulated in Vilven FC) to determine the 'normal age of retirement', rejected applicants' contention that s.15(1)(c) was obsolete or that lack of external comparators justified departing from precedent, and found applicants failed to provide the factual record or factors necessary to justify a different methodology; accordingly the judicial review application was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application for judicial review dismissed; costs awarded to Respondents

Orders

  • Application for judicial review dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the Respondents. If parties cannot agree on costs within 15 days, Respondents to file submissions (not exceeding two pages) supporting an award of costs no later than one week thereafter and Applicants may file a response one week later.