Bailie et al. v. Air Canada and Air Canada Pilots Association

Bailie et al. v. Air Canada and Air Canada Pilots Association

Motions dismissed: the Tribunal finds Air Canada’s SOP provides sufficient particulars under Rule 6 and further particulars are not required; the challenged paragraphs do not meet the low threshold for being plainly and obviously incapable of supporting the case and thus will not be struck; ACPA may arguable plead a BFOR defence and that issue, like others identified, must be resolved at the hearing with evidence rather than by pre-hearing striking of pleadings.

Citation
2011 CHRT 17
Parties
Complainants: Coalition Complainants (retired Air Canada pilots listed in decision); Commission: Canadian Human Rights Commission; Respondent: Air Canada; Respondent: Air Canada Pilots Association
Court
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
14 October 2011
Procedural Posture
Human Rights Complaint Under the Canadian Human Rights Act / Pre Hearing Motions Concerning Statements of Particulars; Liability/remedy Bifurcated; Case Management Pending
Outcome
Both motions dismissed
Legal Topics
Age Discrimination, Bona Fide Occupational Requirement (bfor), Mandatory Retirement, Procedural: Statement of Particulars, Strike Pleadings, Abuse of Process, Disclosure and Production
Source Language
English
Human Rights Law Employment Law Administrative Law Age Discrimination Bona Fide Occupational Requirement (bfor) Mandatory Retirement Procedural: Statement of Particulars Strike Pleadings +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 5 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Coalition Complainants (retired Air Canada pilots listed in decision)

Complainants

Canadian Human Rights Commission

Commission

Air Canada

Respondent

Air Canada Pilots Association

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Human Rights Complaint Under the Canadian Human Rights Act / Pre Hearing Motions Concerning Statements of Particulars; Liability/remedy Bifurcated; Case Management Pending

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Air Canada must provide further and better particulars of its BFOR defence including accommodation to undue hardship
  2. 2 Whether specified paragraphs of Air Canada’s Statement of Particulars should be struck as irrelevant, moot or abuse of process
  3. 3 Whether the Air Canada Pilots Association may plead a BFOR defence

Ratio Decidendi

Motions dismissed: the Tribunal finds Air Canada’s SOP provides sufficient particulars under Rule 6 and further particulars are not required; the challenged paragraphs do not meet the low threshold for being plainly and obviously incapable of supporting the case and thus will not be struck; ACPA may arguable plead a BFOR defence and that issue, like others identified, must be resolved at the hearing with evidence rather than by pre-hearing striking of pleadings.

Court Disposition

Both motions dismissed

Orders

  • Motion for further and better particulars against Air Canada dismissed
  • Request to strike specified paragraphs of Air Canada’s Statement of Particulars denied