Vilven v. Air Canada

Vilven v. Air Canada

The Tribunal dismissed the complaints because the complainants established a prima facie case but the respondents met the shifted burden by proving, using a proper comparator group (pilots at major international carriers), ICAO norms and empirical data (80% of sampled carriers required mandatory retirement at age 60 or younger), that age 60 was the normal age of retirement under s.15(1)(c) CHRA; accordingly Air Canada's mandatory retirement policy was not discriminatory and s.15(1)(c) does not violate Charter s.15.

Citation
2007 CHRT 36
Parties
Complainant: George Vilven; Complainant: Robert Neil Kelly; Commission: Canadian Human Rights Commission; Respondent: Air Canada; Employee Organization / Interested Party: Air Canada Pilots Association; Interested Party: Fly Past 60 Coalition
Court
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
17 August 2007
Procedural Posture
Human Rights Complaints Under the Canadian Human Rights Act (mandatory Retirement/age Discrimination) / Tribunal Decision (hearing Concluded)
Outcome
Complaints dismissed
Legal Topics
Mandatory Retirement, Age Discrimination, Section 15(1)(c) CHRA, Charter S.15 Analysis, Burden of Proof/prima Facie, Comparator Group Selection, ICAO Standards, Bona Fide Occupational Requirement
Source Language
English
Human Rights Administrative Law Constitutional Law Labour Law Aviation Regulation Mandatory Retirement Age Discrimination Section 15(1)(c) CHRA +5 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 4 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

George Vilven

Complainant

Robert Neil Kelly

Complainant

Canadian Human Rights Commission

Commission

Air Canada

Respondent

Air Canada Pilots Association

Employee Organization / Interested Party

Fly Past 60 Coalition

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Human Rights Complaints Under the Canadian Human Rights Act (mandatory Retirement/age Discrimination) / Tribunal Decision (hearing Concluded)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Who bears the onus under s.15(1)(c) CHRA?
  2. 2 Whether complainants established a prima facie case under ss.7,9,10 CHRA
  3. 3 Whether respondents proved age 60 is the normal age of retirement for comparable positions under s.15(1)(c)

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal dismissed the complaints because the complainants established a prima facie case but the respondents met the shifted burden by proving, using a proper comparator group (pilots at major international carriers), ICAO norms and empirical data (80% of sampled carriers required mandatory retirement at age 60 or younger), that age 60 was the normal age of retirement under s.15(1)(c) CHRA; accordingly Air Canada's mandatory retirement policy was not discriminatory and s.15(1)(c) does not violate Charter s.15.

Court Disposition

Complaints dismissed

Orders

  • Complaints of George Vilven and Robert Neil Kelly are dismissed
  • No remedies awarded against Air Canada or Air Canada Pilots Association