Thwaites et al. V. Air Canada and Air Canada Pilots Association

Thwaites et al. V. Air Canada and Air Canada Pilots Association

The Federal Court in Vilven #2 conducted an independent Oakes analysis on materially identical facts and concluded paragraph 15(1)(c) of the CHRA is not saved under s.1 of the Charter; that legal determination is binding on this Tribunal and precludes reliance on s.15(1)(c) in these proceedings.

Citation
2012 CHRT 9
Parties
Complainants: Thwaites et al. (Robert Adamson et al.); Complainant: Donald Paxton; Commission: Canadian Human Rights Commission; Respondent: Air Canada; Respondent: Air Canada Pilots Association
Court
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
18 April 2012
Procedural Posture
Human Rights Age Discrimination (mandatory Retirement) / Tribunal Ruling on Binding Effect of Federal Court Decision and Disposition of Complaints After Hearing
Outcome
Tribunal refuses to apply paragraph 15(1)(c) of the CHRA on the basis that, as determined by the Federal Court in Vilven #2, it is not saved under s.1 of the Charter; respondents' justificatory defences fail and the complaints are substantiated.
Legal Topics
Age Discrimination, Section 15 Charter, Section 1 Oakes Test, Stare Decisis, Res Judicata, Judicial Review
Source Language
English
Human Rights Law Constitutional Law Administrative Law Labour Law Age Discrimination Section 15 Charter Section 1 Oakes Test Stare Decisis +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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Thwaites et al. (Robert Adamson et al.)

Complainants

Donald Paxton

Complainant

Canadian Human Rights Commission

Commission

Air Canada

Respondent

Air Canada Pilots Association

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Human Rights Age Discrimination (mandatory Retirement) / Tribunal Ruling on Binding Effect of Federal Court Decision and Disposition of Complaints After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether paragraph 15(1)(c) of the Canadian Human Rights Act is constitutional under s.15 and s.1 of the Charter
  2. 2 Whether the Federal Court decision Vilven #2 (2011 FC 120) is binding on the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal in these proceedings
  3. 3 Whether the respondents can rely on justificatory defences (BFOR under s.15(1)(a)/15(2) or s.15(1)(c))

Ratio Decidendi

The Federal Court in Vilven #2 conducted an independent Oakes analysis on materially identical facts and concluded paragraph 15(1)(c) of the CHRA is not saved under s.1 of the Charter; that legal determination is binding on this Tribunal and precludes reliance on s.15(1)(c) in these proceedings.

Court Disposition

Tribunal refuses to apply paragraph 15(1)(c) of the CHRA on the basis that, as determined by the Federal Court in Vilven #2, it is not saved under s.1 of the Charter; respondents' justificatory defences fail and the complaints are substantiated.

Orders

  • Tribunal decision 2011 CHRT 11 amended: paragraph 182 deleted
  • Tribunal decision 2011 CHRT 11 amended: paragraph 430 deleted and replaced as set out in the ruling