Adamson et al. v. Air Canada et al., (2014) 447 F.T.R. 1 (FC)

JudgeAnnis, J.
CourtFederal Court (Canada)
Case DateJanuary 27, 2014
JurisdictionCanada (Federal)
Citations(2014), 447 F.T.R. 1 (FC);2014 FC 83

Adamson v. Air Can. (2014), 447 F.T.R. 1 (FC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

.........................

Temp. Cite: [2014] F.T.R. TBEd. JA.040

Robert Adamson, Robert David Anthony, Jacob Bakker, Donald Barnes, Michael Bingham, Doug Boyes, Kenneth Buchholz, Daniel Burrows, David G. Cameron, Wayne Caswill, George Cockburn, Bert Copping, Gary Delf, James E. Denovan, Maurice Durrant (Estate of), Colm Egan, Eldon Elliott, Leon Evans, Robert Ford, Larry Forseth, Grant Foster, Guy Glahn, Kenwood Green, Jonathan Hardwicke-Brown, Terry Hartvigsen, James Hawkins, George Herman, James Richard Hewson, Brock Higham, Larry Humphries, George Donald Iddon, Peter Jarman, Neil Charles Keating, George Kirbyson, Robin Lamb, Stephen Lambert, Les Lavoie, Harry G. Leslie, Robert Lowes, George Lucas, Donald Madec, Don Maloney, Michael Marynowski, Brian Mcdonald, Peter McHardy, Glenn Ronald McRae, James Millard, Brian Milsom, Howard Minaker, George Morgan, Greg Mutchler, Hal Osenjak, Sten Palbom, Michael Pearson, David Powell-Williams, Paul Prentice, Michael Reid, Patrick Rieschi, Steven Ross, Gary Scott, Phillip Shaw, Andrew Sheret, Michael Shulist, Donald Smith, Owen Stewart, Ray Thwaites, Dale Trueman, Andre Verschelden, Douglas Zebedee (applicants) v. Air Canada, Air Canada Pilots Association and Canadian Human Rights Commission (respondents)

(T-1428-11)

Air Canada (applicant) v. Robert Adamson, Robert David Anthony, Jacob Bakker, Donald Barnes, Michael Bingham, Doug Boyes, Kenneth Buchholz, Daniel Burrows, David G. Cameron, Wayne Caswill, George Cockburn, Bert Copping, Gary Delf, James E. Denovan, Maurice Durrant, Colm Egan, Eldon Elliott, Leon Evans, Robert Ford, Larry Forseth, Grant Foster, Guy Glahn, Kenwood Green, Jonathan Hardwicke-Brown, Terry Hartvigsen, James Hawkins, George Herman, James Richard Hewson, Brock Higham, Larry Humphries, George Donald Iddon, Peter Jarman, Neil Charles Keating, George Kirbyson, Robin Lamb, Stephen Lambert, Les Lavoie, Harry G. Leslie, Robert Lowes, George Lucas, Donald Madec, Don Maloney, Michael Marynowski, Brian McDonald, Peter McHardy, Glenn Ronald McRae, James Millard, Brian Milsom, Howard Minaker, George Morgan, Greg Mutchler, Hal Osenjak, Sten Palbom, Donald Paxton, Michael Pearson, David Powell-Williams, Paul Prentice, Michael Reid, Patrick Rieschi, Steven Ross, Gary Scott, Phillip Shaw, Andrew Sheret, Michael Shulist, Donald Smith, Owen Stewart, Ray Thwaites, Dale Trueman, Andre Verschelden, and Douglas Zebedee, Canadian Human Rights Commission, Air Canada Pilot Association (respondents)

(T-1453-11)

Air Canada Pilots Association (applicant) v. Robert Adamson, Robert David Anthony, Jacob Bakker, Donald Barnes, Michael Bingham, Doug Boyes, Kenneth Buchholz, Daniel Burrows, David G. Cameron, Wayne Caswill, George Cockburn, Bert Copping, Gary Delf, James E. Denovan, Maurice Durrant, Colm Egan, Eldon Elliott, Leon Evans, Robert Ford, Larry Forseth, Grant Foster, Guy Glahn, Kenwood Green, Jonathan Hardwicke-Brown, Terry Hartvigsen, James Hawkins, George Herman, James Richard Hewson, Brock Higham, Larry Humphries, George Donald Iddon, Peter Jarman, Neil Charles Keating, George Kirbyson, Robin Lamb, Stephen Lambert, Les Lavoie, Harry G. Leslie, Robert Lowes, George Lucas, Donald Madec, Don Maloney, Michael Marynowski, Brian Mcdonald, Peter McHardy, Glenn Ronald McRae, James Millard, Brian Milsom, Howard Minaker, George Morgan, Greg Mutchler, Hal Osenjak, Sten Palbom, Donald Paxton, Michael Pearson, David Powell-Williams, Paul Prentice, Michael Reid, Patrick Rieschi, Steven Ross, Gary Scott, Phillip Shaw, Andrew Sheret, Michael Shulist, Donald Smith, Owen Stewart, Ray Thwaites, Dale Trueman, Andre Verschelden, Douglas Zebedee, and Canadian Human Rights Commission and Air Canada (respondents)

(T-1463-11)

Air Canada (applicant) v. Robert Adamson, Robert David Anthony, Jacob Bakker, Donald Barnes, Michael Bingham, Doug Boyes, Kenneth Buchholz, Daniel Burrows, David G. Cameron, Wayne Caswill, George Cockburn, Bert Copping, Gary Delf, James E. Denovan, Maurice Durrant, Colm Egan, Eldon Elliott, Leon Evans, Robert Ford, Larry Forseth, Grant Foster, Guy Glahn, Kenwood Green, Jonathan Hardwicke-Brown, Terry Hartvigsen, James Hawkins, George Herman, James Richard Hewson, Brock Higham, Larry Humphries, George Donald Iddon, Peter Jarman, Neil Charles Keating, George Kirbyson, Robin Lamb, Stephen Lambert, Les Lavoie, Harry G. Leslie, Robert Lowes, George Lucas, Donald Madec, Don Maloney, Michael Marynowski, Brian McDonald, Peter McHardy, Glenn Ronald McRae, James Millard, Brian Milsom, Howard Minaker, George Morgan, Greg Mutchler, Hal Osenjak, Sten Palbom, Donald Paxton, Michael Pearson, David Powell-Williams, Paul Prentice, Michael Reid, Patrick Rieschi, Steven Ross, Gary Scott, Phillip Shaw, Andrew Sheret, Michael Shulist, Donald Smith, Owen Stewart, Ray Thwaites, Dale Trueman, Andre Verschelden, Douglas Zebedee, and Canadian Human Rights Commission and Air Canada Pilots Association (respondents)

(T-971-12)

Air Canada Pilots Association (applicant) v. Robert Adamson, Robert David Anthony, Jacob Bakker, Donald Barnes, Michael Bingham, Doug Boyes, Kenneth Buchholz, Daniel Burrows, David G. Cameron, Wayne Caswill, George Cockburn, Bert Copping, Gary Delf, James E. Denovan, Maurice Durrant, Colm Egan, Eldon Elliott, Leon Evans, Robert Ford, Larry Forseth, Grant Foster, Guy Glahn, Kenwood Green, Jonathan Hardwicke-Brown, Terry Hartvigsen, James Hawkins, George Herman, James Richard Hewson, Brock Higham, Larry Humphries, George Donald Iddon, Peter Jarman, Neil Charles Keating, George Kirbyson, Robin Lamb, Stephen Lambert, Les Lavoie, Harry G. Leslie, Robert Lowes, George Lucas, Donald Madec, Don Maloney, Michael Marynowski, Brian McDonald, Peter Mchardy, Glenn Ronald McRae, James Millard, Brian Milsom, Howard Minaker, George Morgan, Greg Mutchler, Hal Osenjak, Sten Palbom, Donald Paxton, Michael Pearson, David Powell-Williams, Paul Prentice, Michael Reid, Patrick Rieschi, Steven Ross, Gary Scott, Phillip Shaw, Andrew Sheret, Michael Shulist, Donald Smith, Owen Stewart, Ray Thwaites, Dale Trueman, Andre Verschelden, Douglas Zebedee and Canadian Human Rights Commission and Air Canada (respondents)

(T-979-12; 2014 FC 83; 2014 CF 83)

Indexed As: Adamson et al. v. Air Canada et al.

Federal Court

Annis, J.

January 27, 2014.

Summary:

The complainants, a group of retired Air Canada pilots and past members of the Air Canada Pilots Association (ACPA), who were forced to retire at age 60 pursuant to their collective agreement and pension plan, filed an age discrimination complaint under the Canadian Human Rights Act (CHRA).

The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal (CHRT), in a decision with neutral citation 2011 CHRT 11, made an initial finding of prima facie discrimination. The CHRT also rejected the Bona Fide Occupational Requirement (BFOR) defences of Air Canada and ACPA. Ultimately, however, the allegations of a discriminatory practice were not upheld because the Tribunal concluded that 60 was the "normal age of retirement" in the Canadian passenger airline industry, thereby denying liability pursuant to s. 15(1)(c) of the CHRA. All parties filed for judicial review. The pilots challenged the finding on normal age of retirement (Court file T-1428-11) while Air Canada and ACPA sought to set aside the CHRT's decision rejecting their BFOR defences (T-1453-11 and T-1463-11 respectively). The Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC) also applied for judicial review (T-1456-11), seeking a determination of the constitutionality of s. 15(1)(c) of the CHRA; however, that application was discontinued when the CHRT agreed to consider the question.

The Canadian Human Tights Tribunal, in a decision with neutral citation 2012 CHRT 9, ruled that s. 15(1)(c) violated the guarantee of equality in s. 15(1) of the Charter. That decision reversed the previous outcome of the complaint, as Air Canada and ACPA no longer had a valid defence to the prima facie discrimination. Air Canada applied for judicial review of the CHRT's decision (T-971-12), as did ACPA (T-979-12). However, shortly afterward, in Air Canada Pilots Association v. Kelly (2012 FCA 209), the Federal Court of Appeal upheld the constitutionality of s. 15(1)(c). Leave to appeal was denied - see 452 N.R. 397.

The Federal Court held, in light of the Kelly decision, that the CHRT's decision in 2012 CHRT 9 was no longer valid, and Court files T-971-12 and T-979-12 were therefore dismissed. The court allowed the pilots' judicial review application and set aside the CHRT's decision on the normal age of retirement of pilots at age 60. The court dismissed Air Canada's application to set aside the CHRT's decision rejecting its BFOR defence. The court allowed ACPA's application to set aside the CHRT's decision dismissing its BFOR defence and sent the matter back for redetermination by the same panel with directions on the law and on the methodology to be used by the CHRT.

Aeronautics - Topic 4505

Pilots - General - Mandatory retirement - [See first Civil Rights - Topic 995 and first, second, third, fourth and fifth Civil Rights - Topic 998 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 995

Discrimination - Employment - Age - Retirement - The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal (CHRT) dismissed an age discrimination complaint by Air Canada pilots who were forced to retire at age 60, because 60 was the normal age of retirement in the Canadian passenger airline industry (Canadian Human Rights Act, s. 15(1)(c)) - Section 15(1)(c) allowed an employer to terminate the employment of an individual if that person had reached the "normal age of retirement" for those working in similar positions - The pilots applied for judicial review - The Federal Court discussed the test to be applied to determine comparator pilots for purposes of s. 15(1)(c) - The court allowed the application because the CHRT did not properly apply that test - The matter was remitted for reconsideration on the basis of the test set out by the court - See paragraphs 86 to 132.

Civil Rights - Topic 995

Discrimination - Employment - Age - Retirement - [See first, second, third, fourth and fifth Civil Rights - Topic 998 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 996

Discrimination - Employment - Age - Retirement - Exceptions - [See first Civil Rights - Topic 995 and first, second, third, fourth and fifth Civil Rights - Topic 998 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 998

Discrimination - Employment - Exceptions - Bona fide or reasonable occupational requirement or qualification - Air Canada pilots who were required to retire at age 60 filed a discrimination complaint under the Canadian Human Rights Act (CHRA) - The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal (CHRT) made an initial finding of prima facie discrimination and rejected the Bona Fide Occupational Requirement (BFOR) defence by Air Canada - Air Canada applied for judicial review - The Federal Court dismissed Air Canada' s application - The court held that the CHRT's decision was reasonable in its justification of the outcome and intelligible in its explanation in concluding that Air Canada had not met the burden of proving that it would suffer undue hardship due to the elimination of the age 60 retirement rule and therefore could not rely upon the BFOR defence under s. 15(1)(a) of the CHRA - See paragraphs 133 to 160.

Civil Rights - Topic 998

Discrimination - Employment - Exceptions - Bona fide or reasonable occupational requirement or qualification - Air Canada pilots who were required to retire at age 60 filed a discrimination complaint under the Canadian Human Rights Act (CHRA) - The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal (CHRT) made an initial finding of prima facie discrimination and rejected a Bona Fide Occupational Requirement (BFOR) defence by the Air Canada Pilots Association (ACPA) - ACPA applied for judicial review - The Federal Court held that ACPA's BFOR defence was premised on wrong principles such that no proper hearing had been held on the issue - First, the CHRT applied a BFOR test for employers, when the test should have been one that would permit ACPA to advance defences justifying the mandatory retirement rule - Secondly, the case was conducted on the basis that the hardship factors had to be limited to safety, health and costs, thereby limiting hardship considerations to the financial impact of extending the age of retirement of pilots - As a result of those two errors in principle, the matter had to be redetermined using an appropriate BFOR test at a hearing at which the parties could lead evidence and advance arguments on all factors of hardship not considered in these proceedings - See paragraphs 162 to 334.

Civil Rights - Topic 998

Discrimination - Employment - Exceptions - Bona fide or reasonable occupational requirement or qualification - The Federal Court held that a union (in this case the Air Canada Pilots Association) was entitled to advance a BFOR defence under s. 15(1)(a) of the Canadian Human Rights Act - The court set out a test (i.e., the modified Meiorin test) for determining whether the union's joint participation in the discriminatory practice with the employer was justified - The court imposed the following requirements: "a. The employer adopted the standard for a purpose rationally connected to the performance of the job; b. the union adopted the particular standard in an honest and good faith belief that it was in the collective best interests of its membership; c. the standard is reasonably necessary to the accomplishment of the legitimate work-related purposes of the union . For a union to show that the standard is reasonably necessary, it must be demonstrated that it cannot accommodate the individual members of the union sharing the characteristics of the claimant without imposing undue hardship on other members of the union; and d. the degree of hardship must be weighed against the nature of the discrimination to ensure that the importance of promoting freedom from the discriminatory conduct, in this case freedom from age discrimination, can admit a lower standard" - Thereafter, the court elaborated on these steps - See paragraphs 216 to 227.

Civil Rights - Topic 998

Discrimination - Employment - Exceptions - Bona fide or reasonable occupational requirement or qualification - Air Canada pilots who were required to retire at age 60 filed a discrimination complaint (Canadian Human Rights Act (CHRA)) - The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal (CHRT) made an initial finding of prima facie discrimination and rejected a Bona Fide Occupational Requirement (BFOR) defence by the Air Canada Pilots Association (ACPA) - ACPA applied for judicial review - The Federal Court allowed the application, holding that the CHRT's decision on hardship was not justified or transparent and did not fall within the range of possible reasonable outcomes - The court remitted the matter for reconsideration with the following directions: (a) the CHRT was to apply the four-step hybrid Meiorin test as set out by the court (para. 220); (b) the CHRT was not to limit the evidence on hardship to health, safety or costs (i.e., the categories enumerated in s. 15(2) of the CHRA), but was to consider any evidence of disadvantage to the comparator pilots and the union caused by the elimination of the mandatory retirement plan; (c) in determining whether financial hardship was occasioned to the comparator pilots, the CHRT was to give due consideration to the areas of concern outlined by the court; (d) the CHRT was to provide the parties with an opportunity to present evidence on the net economic effect resulting from extending the age of retirement from age 60 to 63, which could include evidence on the impact of pensions, but not taxes - See paragraph 334.

Civil Rights - Topic 998

Discrimination - Employment - Exceptions - Bona fide or reasonable occupational requirement or qualification - Air Canada pilots who were required to retire at age 60 filed a discrimination complaint under the Canadian Human Rights Act (CHRA) - The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal (CHRT) made an initial finding of prima facie discrimination and rejected a Bona Fide Occupational Requirement (BFOR) defence by the pilots' union, the Air Canada Pilots Association (ACPA) (Canadian Human Rights Act (CHRA), s. 15(1)(a)) - ACPA applied for judicial review - The pilots argued that ACPA was not entitled to advance a BFOR defence because unions were not included in s. 15(1)(a) - The pilots argued further that the nature of the union's hardship, if established, was excluded by s. 15(2), which limited that defence to issues of health, safety and costs - The Federal Court held that a union was entitled to advance a BFOR defence under s. 15(1)(a) and that the categories of hardship under s. 15(2) were not limited to health, safety and costs - Rather the CHRT was to consider any evidence of disadvantage to the comparator pilots and the union caused by the elimination of the mandatory retirement plan, including financial hardship occasioned by the pilots - See paragraphs 171 to 334.

Civil Rights - Topic 998

Discrimination - Employment - Exceptions - Bona fide or reasonable occupational requirement or qualification - Section 15(2) of the Canadian Human Rights Act provided that to be a Bona Fide Occupational Requirement it had to be established that accommodation of the needs of the persons affected would impose undue hardship on the person who would have to accommodate those needs, considering health, safety and cost - The Federal Court held that s. 15(2) was not limited to the three enumerated categories of hardship - In interpreting s. 15(2), the court considered the principle respecting avoidance of imposing absolute liability, the maxim expressio unius est esclusio alterius, the principle that exceptions to human rights legislation should be narrowly construed and Parliamentary intention - See paragraphs 188 to 215.

Civil Rights - Topic 7115

Federal, provincial or territorial legislation - Practice - Judicial review (incl. standard of review) - The complainants, a group of retired Air Canada pilots and past members of the Air Canada Pilots Association (ACPA), who were forced to retire at age 60 pursuant to their collective agreement and pension plan, filed an age discrimination complaint pursuant to the Canadian Human Rights Act (CHRA) - The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal (CHRT) made an initial finding of prima facie discrimination and rejected Bona Fide Occupational Requirement (BFOR) defences by Air Canada and ACPA - Ultimately, however, the CHRT held that this was not a discriminatory practice pursuant to s. 15(1)(c) of the CHRA because 60 was the "normal age of retirement" in the Canadian passenger airline industry - All parties applied for judicial review - The Federal Court discussed the standard of review with regard to the numerous issues raised by these applications - See paragraphs 78 to 86.

Cases Noticed:

Public Service Employee Relations Commission (B.C.) v. British Columbia Government and Service Employees' Union, [1999] 3 S.C.R. 3; 244 N.R. 145; 127 B.C.A.C. 161; 207 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 16].

Renaud v. Board of Education of Central Okanagan No. 23 and Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 523, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 970; 141 N.R. 185; 13 B.C.A.C. 245; 24 W.A.C. 245, refd to. [para. 17].

Vilven v. Air Canada et al. (2009), 344 F.T.R. 104; 2009 FC 367, disagreed with [paras. 18, 33].

Law v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, [1999] 1 S.C.R. 497; 236 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 19].

Withler v. Canada (Attorney General) (2011), 412 N.R. 149; 300 B.C.A.C. 120; 509 W.A.C. 120; 2011 SCC 12, refd to. [para. 19].

McKinney v. University of Guelph et al., [1990] 3 S.C.R. 229; 118 N.R. 1; 45 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 21].

A. v. B., [2013] 1 S.C.R. 61; 439 N.R. 1; 2013 SCC 5, refd to. [para. 22].

Quebec (Attorney General) v. A. - see A. v. B.

Vilven v. Air Canada, 2007 CHRT 36, refd to. [para. 26].

Gosselin v. Quebec (Procureur général), [2002] 4 S.C.R. 429; 298 N.R. 1; 2002 SCC 84, refd to. [para. 36].

R. v. Kapp (J.M.) et al., [2008] 2 S.C.R. 483; 376 N.R. 1; 256 B.C.A.C. 75; 431 W.A.C. 75; 2008 SCC 41, refd to. [para. 37].

Vilven v. Air Canada, 2009 CHRT 24, refd to. [para. 50].

R. v. Oakes, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 103; 65 N.R. 87; 14 O.A.C. 335, refd to. [para. 51].

McGill University Health Centre (Montreal General Hospital) v. Syndicat des employés de l'Hôpital général de Montréal et al., [2007] 1 S.C.R. 161; 356 N.R. 177; 2007 SCC 4, refd to. [para. 55].

Vilven v. Air Canada, 2010 CHRT 27, refd to. [para. 61].

Air Canada Pilots Association v. Kelly et al. (2011), 383 F.T.R. 198; 2011 FC 120, affd. in part (2012), 434 N.R. 165; 2012 FCA 209, refd to. [paras. 62, 75].

Human Rights Commission (Ont.) and Bates v. Zurich Insurance Co., [1992] 2 S.C.R. 321; 138 N.R. 1; 55 O.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 66].

Kelly and Vilven v. Air Canada and Air Canada Pilots Association, 2011 CHRT 10, refd to. [para. 69].

New Brunswick (Board of Management) v. Dunsmuir, [2008] 1 S.C.R. 190; 372 N.R. 1; 329 N.B.R.(2d) 1; 844 A.P.R. 1; 2008 SCC 9, refd to. [para. 78].

Suresh v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2002] 1 S.C.R. 3; 281 N.R. 1; 2002 SCC 1, refd to. [para. 85].

Allergan Inc. et al. v. Canada (Minister of Health) et al. (2012), 440 N.R. 269; 2012 FCA 308, refd to. [para. 186].

London Guarantee & Accident Co. v. Northwest Utilities Ltd., [1936] A.C. 108, refd to. [para. 196].

Lévis (City) v. Tétreault, [2006] 1 S.C.R. 420; 346 N.R. 331; 2006 SCC 12, refd to. [para. 197].

R. v. Sault Ste. Marie (City), [1978] 2 S.C.R. 1299; 21 N.R. 295, refd to. [para. 197].

R. v. DeSousa, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 944; 142 N.R. 1; 56 O.A.C. 109, refd to. [para. 197].

Syndicat des employées de techniques professionnelles et de bureau d'Hydro-Québec, section local 2000 (SCFP-FTQ) v. Hydro-Québec, [2008] 2 S.C.R. 561; 377 N.R. 136; 2008 SCC 43, refd to. [para. 202].

British Columbia (Minister of Education) v. Moore et al., [2012] 3 S.C.R. 360; 436 N.R. 152; 328 B.C.A.C. 1; 558 W.A.C. 1; 2012 SCC 61, refd to. [para. 363].

British Columbia (Minister of Education) v. Moore et al. (2010), 294 B.C.A.C. 185; 498 W.A.C. 185; 2010 BCCA 478, refd to. [para. 363].

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Human Rights Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. H-6, sect. 2, sect. 7, sect. 10, sect. 15(1)(a) [para. 170]; sect. 15(1)(c) [para. 86]; sect. 15(1)(d), sect. 15(1)(f), sect. 15(2) [para. 170].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Greschner, Donna, Does Law Advance the Cause of Equality? (2001), 27 Queen's L. J. 299, generally [para. 370].

Counsel:

Maryse Tremblay, Fred W. Headon, and Jennifer Black, for the respondent, Air Canada;

Bruce Laughton, for the respondent, Air Canada Pilots Association;

David Baker and Raymond Hall, for the applicants, Robert Adamson et al.;

Daniel Poulin, the respondent, Canadian Human Rights Commission.

Solicitors of Record:

Heenan Blakie LLP, Montreal, Quebec, for the respondent, Air Canada;

Laughton & Company, Vancouver, British Columbia, for the respondent, Air Canada Pilots Association;

Baker Law, Toronto, Ontario, for the applicants, Robert Adamson et al.;

Raymond D. Hall, Winnipeg, Manitoba, for the respondent, Canadian Human Rights Commission;

Canadian Human Rights Commission, Ottawa, Ontario, for the respondent, Canadian Human Rights Commission.

These applications were heard at Ottawa, Ontario, on May 27-29, 2013, by Annis, J., of the Federal Court, who delivered the following decision on January 27, 2014.

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 practice notes
  • Adamson et al. v. Air Canada et al., (2015) 474 N.R. 136 (FCA)
    • Canada
    • Canada (Federal) Federal Court of Appeal (Canada)
    • January 20, 2015
    ...retirement-are at issue in these consolidated appeals of a judgment of the Federal Court by Annis J. (Judge), issued on January 27, 2014 (2014 FC 83, [2014] F.C.J. No. 82) (Judgment) along with a 435-paragraph set of reasons (Reasons). By this Judgment, the Judge disposed of five applicatio......
  • Adamson c. Canada (Commission canadienne des droits de la personne),
    • Canada
    • Court of Appeal (Canada)
    • June 26, 2015
    ...in these consolidated appeals of a judgment of the Federal Court by Annis J. (Judge), issued on January 27, 2014 [Adamson v. Air Canada] 2014 FC 83, 13 C.C.E.L. (4th) 1 (judgment) along with a 435-paragraph set of reasons (reasons). By this judg-ment, the Judge disposed of five applications......
  • Nedelec v. Rogers, 2023 FC 950
    • Canada
    • Federal Court (Canada)
    • July 13, 2023
    ...complainants/applicants successfully challenged the Tribunal’s finding on the normal age of retirement (see Adamson v Air Canada, 2014 FC 83 [Adamson FC]). However, the Federal Court of Appeal overturned Adamson FC and restored the Tribunal’s decision (see Adamson v Canada (Ca......
3 cases
  • Adamson et al. v. Air Canada et al., (2015) 474 N.R. 136 (FCA)
    • Canada
    • Canada (Federal) Federal Court of Appeal (Canada)
    • January 20, 2015
    ...retirement-are at issue in these consolidated appeals of a judgment of the Federal Court by Annis J. (Judge), issued on January 27, 2014 (2014 FC 83, [2014] F.C.J. No. 82) (Judgment) along with a 435-paragraph set of reasons (Reasons). By this Judgment, the Judge disposed of five applicatio......
  • Adamson c. Canada (Commission canadienne des droits de la personne),
    • Canada
    • Court of Appeal (Canada)
    • June 26, 2015
    ...in these consolidated appeals of a judgment of the Federal Court by Annis J. (Judge), issued on January 27, 2014 [Adamson v. Air Canada] 2014 FC 83, 13 C.C.E.L. (4th) 1 (judgment) along with a 435-paragraph set of reasons (reasons). By this judg-ment, the Judge disposed of five applications......
  • Nedelec v. Rogers, 2023 FC 950
    • Canada
    • Federal Court (Canada)
    • July 13, 2023
    ...complainants/applicants successfully challenged the Tribunal’s finding on the normal age of retirement (see Adamson v Air Canada, 2014 FC 83 [Adamson FC]). However, the Federal Court of Appeal overturned Adamson FC and restored the Tribunal’s decision (see Adamson v Canada (Ca......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT