mandatory retirement
Is 36 months the new 24?
For a long time, the common law notice period had an “unofficial” cap of 24 months, which was generally reserved for very long-service, senior level management. In recent years, things have changed and longer notice periods are becoming the norm.
Three popular articles this week on HRinfodesk
Three popular articles this week on HRinfodesk deal with the impact of an aging workforce; mood disorders and job performance; and, unauthorized deductions.
Three popular articles this week on HRinfodesk
Three popular articles this week on HRinfodesk deal with mandatory retirement; enforceability of releases; and an employer’s obligation to accommodate child care responsibilities.
Top benefits trends for Canadian employers to track in 2014
Rising costs, court challenges and legislative changes are three trends employers should track to manage employee health care benefits in the coming year. These three areas will continue to drive employee health care policies for employers. Awareness and planning in these areas will help employers to contain costs and avoid discrimination charges regarding provision of benefits.
Leave to Appeal Air Canada mandatory retirement case to Supreme Court of Canada dismissed
As predicted, there was an application for leave to appeal Air Canada’s mandatory retirement case to the Supreme Court of Canada; however, without providing any reasons, the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the application and refused to hear the matter.
Human Rights Tribunal dismisses seven allegations of age discrimination
Since Ontario eliminated mandatory retirement back in 2006, age has become one of the most often cited ground for discrimination in human rights case law. In Zholudev v. EMC Corporation of Canada, 2012 HRTO 626, the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal scrutinized an employee’s allegations of age discrimination in the context of the employer’s promotion and termination practices.
Expect application for leave to appeal to Supreme Court of Canada in Air Canada mandatory retirement case
Since the Federal Court of Appeal upheld the mandatory retirement practice for Air Canada pilots, some developments have taken place. First, in the primary Vilven and Kelly case, there will likely be an application filed to obtain leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada regarding the constitutionality of section 15(1)(c) of the Canadian Human Rights Act.
Air Canada’s mandatory retirement practice upheld
A recent decision by the Federal Court of Appeal has upheld the mandatory retirement practice for Air Canada pilots. This decision overturns earlier findings by the Federal Court of Canada and the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal that contractual provisions forcing Air Canada pilots to retire at 60 violated the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom.
Air Canada pilots’ mandatory retirement saga continues
As you may recall, Air Canada pilots launched human rights complaints on the ground of age discrimination because the company forced them to retire at age 60. In a history of decisions spanning back to 2007 challenging the Air Canada policy that requires pilots to retire at the age of 60, which section 15(1)(c) of the Canadian Human Rights Act purports to allow, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal recently made two more decisions. One involved…
Older workers and declining performance
When mandatory retirement was eliminated, I noted that this change might create some interesting HR issues for employers of older workers. In the past, employers were often in a position to tolerate declining performance, comfortable in the knowledge that the employment relationship had a fixed “end date.” As a result, they could allow the employee to work out their last few years and retire with dignity.
Canadian Human Rights Commission cautions employers on rights of aging workers
Recently, the Canadian Human Rights Commission received inquiries and was made aware of media commentary about employers seeking to take advantage of the transition period to force older employees to retire before they are ready to.
Mandatory retirement ends for federally regulated employers
The federal government gave royal assent to Bill C-13, Keeping Canada’s Economy and Jobs Growing Act on December 15, 2011. Several of the measures enacted have an impact on employment law for federally regulated workplaces. One of the measures amends the Canadian Human Rights Act to eliminate the mandatory retirement age for federally regulated employees.
Mandatory retirement has been eliminated − is anyone listening?
Old habits die hard. The Human Resources industry is obviously having a hard time abandoning the notion that 65 is the accepted age for retirement. Since amendments to the Ontario Human Rights Code in 2006, employers are prohibited from discriminating against employees based solely on age. Prima facie compelling retirement at age 65 is a breach of the Code.
The Air Canada pilots’ mandatory retirement saga – will it end with the tribunal’s third decision?
In July, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal made its third decision in the case of two Air Canada pilots who challenged the airline’s mandatory retirement policy. The tribunal decided in favour of Air Canada. Then, in August, the tribunal decided in a similar case involving 70 other Air Canada pilots. The tribunal again decided in favour of the airline, but for different reasons. For those hoping the July decision would settle the matter once and for all, the August decision is sure to confuse matters.
Is mandatory retirement really mandatory?
Section 15.1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Charter) provides that “every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on…age.”
Get Free Updates
Resources and offers
Awards and recognition
#10 on Feedspot's Top 75 in 2016
Employment Blogs
Fodden Award for Best Canadian Law Blog
Legal Culture Award
Runner up in the Fodden Award for Best Canadian Law Blog
Finalist in the Fodden Award for Best Canadian Law Blog
First Reference HR compliance products and services
Recent comments
-
Accommodating mental disabilities in the workplace
My employer denied me the right to have a support person present at a meeting with HR regarding an investigation into workplace bullying and psychological... – Feb 02, 2:14 PM
-
Love at work: considerations for employers in managing office romances
Which is more practical, absolutely no office romance policy or allowed but need to disclose? IMO, the need to disclose, while accommodating, complexity and unnecessary... – Dec 15, 1:39 PM
- Generated by BWP Recent Comments.
