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

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

The Tribunal ruled that the Canadian Human Rights Benefit Regulations do not define 'normal age of retirement' as the 'maximum age' for the purposes of paragraph 15(1)(c) of the CHRA; paragraph 15(1)(c) was not found to be obsolete on the record before the Tribunal; and the Tribunal must use a strict statistical (number count/majority) methodology to determine the normal age of retirement for the complainants, following CHRT precedent affirmed by the Federal Court (Vilven).

Citation
2020 CHRT 16
Parties
Complainants: Nedelec et al.; Commission: Canadian Human Rights Commission; Respondent: Air Canada; Respondent: Air Canada Pilots Association
Court
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
5 June 2020
Procedural Posture
Human Rights Complaint Canadian Human Rights Tribunal / Preliminary Ruling (interim)
Outcome
Tribunal rules that the Regulations do not make the 'normal age of retirement' equivalent to the 'maximum age' for paragraph 15(1)(c); paragraph 15(1)(c) is not obsolete on the record; and the Tribunal will apply a strict statistical methodology to determine the normal age of retirement.
Legal Topics
Age Discrimination, Mandatory Retirement, Statutory Interpretation, Doctrine of Stare Decisis, Regulatory Interpretation
Source Language
English
Human Rights Employment Law Administrative Law Age Discrimination Mandatory Retirement Statutory Interpretation Doctrine of Stare Decisis Regulatory Interpretation

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

Nedelec et al.

Complainants

Canadian Human Rights Commission

Commission

Air Canada

Respondent

Air Canada Pilots Association

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Human Rights Complaint Canadian Human Rights Tribunal / Preliminary Ruling (interim)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Canadian Human Rights Benefit Regulations define the 'normal age of retirement' for paragraph 15(1)(c) of the CHRA
  2. 2 Whether paragraph 15(1)(c) of the CHRA had become obsolete such that it should not be applied
  3. 3 What methodology the Tribunal should use to determine the 'normal age of retirement' for Air Canada pilots who turned 60 between Jan 1, 2010 and Dec 15, 2012

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal ruled that the Canadian Human Rights Benefit Regulations do not define 'normal age of retirement' as the 'maximum age' for the purposes of paragraph 15(1)(c) of the CHRA; paragraph 15(1)(c) was not found to be obsolete on the record before the Tribunal; and the Tribunal must use a strict statistical (number count/majority) methodology to determine the normal age of retirement for the complainants, following CHRT precedent affirmed by the Federal Court (Vilven).

Court Disposition

Tribunal rules that the Regulations do not make the 'normal age of retirement' equivalent to the 'maximum age' for paragraph 15(1)(c); paragraph 15(1)(c) is not obsolete on the record; and the Tribunal will apply a strict statistical methodology to determine the normal age of retirement.

Orders

  • Canadian Human Rights Benefit Regulations do not define 'normal age of retirement' as the maximum age for paragraph 15(1)(c)
  • Paragraph 15(1)(c) of the CHRA is not declared obsolete on the record before the Tribunal