Dickason and Human Rights Commission (Alta.) v. University of Alberta, (1992) 127 A.R. 241 (SCC)

• Judge: Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin and Iacobucci, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: September 24, 1992
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1992), 127 A.R. 241 (SCC)

Dickason v. Alta. Univ. (1992), 127 A.R. 241 (SCC);

    20 W.A.C. 241

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

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

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

Olive Patricia Dickason (appellant) v. The Governors of the University of Alberta and The Alberta Human Rights Commission (respondents)

(22700)

Indexed As: Dickason and Human Rights Commission (Alta.) v. University of Alberta

Supreme Court of Canada

La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka,

Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin and

Iacobucci, JJ.

September 24, 1992.

Summary:

Article 18.01 of the faculty agreement between the University of Alberta and its professors provided mandatory retirement at age 65. A mandatorily retired professor complained to the Alberta Human Rights Commission. A board of inquiry was appointed. Section 7(1) of the Individual's Rights Protection Act prohibited discrimina­tion on the basis of age. Section 11.1 of the Act permitted contravention of s. 7(1) if it was "reasonable and justifiable". The board determined that mandatory retirement vio­lated s. 7(1) and was not saved by s. 11.1. The board ordered that the professor be reinstated. The university appealed under s. 33 of the Act. The professor and Commis­sion appealed the board's denial of costs against the university. The professor also appealed the dismissal of her claim for general damages.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, in a judgment reported 91 A.R. 350, dismissed all appeals. The university appealed. The professor and Commission cross-appealed.

The Alberta Court of Appeal, in a judg­ment reported 117 A.R. 11; 2 W.A.C. 11, allowed the appeal and dismissed the cross-appeals. The court held that mandatory retirement was discriminatory, but was reasonable and justifiable under s. 11.1 of the Act. The professor appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada, L'Heur­eux-Dubé, McLachlin and Sopinka, JJ., dissenting, dismissed the appeal. The court affirmed that the impugned practice of man­datory retirement was "reasonable and justi­fiable" under s. 11.1 of the Act.

Administrative Law - Topic 9118

Boards and tribunals - Judicial review - Curial deference to decisions of tribunals -A Board of Inquiry found a university's mandatory retirement policy discriminated against professors contrary to the Individ­ual's Rights Protection Act - Section 33(2) of the Act provided for an appeal to the Court of Queen's Bench, with leave, on questions of fact or law - There was no privative clause - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that curial deference need not be given to the Board's decisions - The Act clearly provided for appellate courts to examine the evidence anew and make their own fact findings, if necessary - The Board possessed no special exper­tise requiring curial deference - The record before the Court of Queen's Bench was the same as before the Court of Appeal - The court stated that "there is no basis or justi­fication for the position that this court should be constrained by the conclusions reached by either the Chairman of the Board of Inquiry or the judge of the Court of Queen's Bench on s. 11.1 evidence." - See paragraphs 23 to 30.

Civil Rights - Topic 2

Human rights legislation - Interpretation of - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that rights under human rights statutes "should receive a broad interpretation", but "defences to the exercise of those rights should be interpreted narrowly" - The court stated that "the fact that the two sections [Charter, s. 1 and Individual's Rights Protection Act, s. 11.1] are remark­ably similar and fulfil comparable roles should be taken into account when inter­preting them. Yet it must be remembered there is a crucial difference between human rights legislation and constitutional rights. Human rights legislation is aimed at regulating the actions of private individ­uals. The Charter's goal is to regulate and, on occasion, to constrain actions of the state. This essential difference must be borne in mind when the defences provided by s. 1 of the Charter and s. 11.1 of the IRPA are considered." - See paragraph 17.

Civil Rights - Topic 995

Discrimination - Employment - Age - Retirement - Article 18.01 of a faculty agreement, which provided for mandatory retirement of university professors at age 65, was discriminatory contrary to s. 7(1) of the Individual's Rights Protection Act - The Supreme Court of Canada affirmed that mandatory retirement was "reasonable and justifiable" under s. 11.1 of the Act - The objectives of mandatory retirement in the university setting (preservation of tenure, academic renewal, facilitation of planning and resource management and protection of "retirement with dignity") were of sufficient importance to justify limitations on equality rights - Mandatory retirement was rationally connected to its stated objectives, impaired equality rights as little as possible and the effects were proportional to the objectives - See para­graphs 15 to 55.

Civil Rights - Topic 1183

Discrimination - Exemptions or excep­tions - Justifiable requirement - [See Civil Rights - Topic 995 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 1183

Discrimination - Exemptions or exceptions - Justifiable requirement - Section 11.1 of the Individual's Rights Protection Act excepted discrimination that was "reason­able and justifiable" - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that the similarity between s. 11.1 and s. 1 of the Charter indicated that Charter cases could assist in determining whether a discriminatory practice was "reasonable and justifiable" - The court stated that the Oakes test applied with some modification - "First, the Oakes model is only appropriate if it is applied without any trace of deference to a private defendant such as the employer or land­lord. Secondly, only with a large measure of flexibility and due regard to the context should it be applied to the regulation of private relationships. The inquiry into what is reasonable and justifiable within the meaning of s. 11.1 should not be rigidly constrained by the formal categories set out in the Oakes test." - See paragraph 22.

Civil Rights - Topic 1183

Discrimination - Exemptions or exceptions - Justifiable requirement - A faculty agreement provided for mandatory retire­ment of all university professors at age 65 - The Supreme Court of Canada discussed the relevance of and weight to be given to the faculty agreement in determining whether mandatory retirement, which was discriminatory under s. 7(1) of the Indi­vidual's Rights Protection Act, was "rea­sonable and justifiable" under s. 11.1 of the Act - See paragraphs 35 to 41.

Cases Noticed:

McKinney v. University of Guelph et al., [1990] 3 S.C.R. 229; 118 N.R. 1; 45 O.A.C. 1; 76 D.L.R.(4th) 545; 2 C.R.R.(2d) 1, refd to. [para. 10].

Action Travail des Femmes v. Canadian National Railway Co. et al., [1987] 1 S.C.R. 1114; 76 N.R. 161; 40 D.L.R.(4th) 193; 27 Admin. L.R. 172; 87 C.L.L.C. 17,022, refd to. [para. 15].

Ontario Human Rights Commission, Dun­lop, Hall and Gray v. Borough of Etobi­coke, [1982] 1 S.C.R. 202; 40 N.R. 159, refd to. [para. 16].

Brossard (Town) v. Commission des droits de la personne du Québec and Laurin, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 279; 88 N.R. 321; 18 Q.A.C. 164, refd to. [para. 16].

R. v. Oakes, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 103; 65 N.R. 87; 14 O.A.C. 335; 26 D.L.R.(4th) 200; 50 C.R.(3d) 1; 24 C.C.C.(3d) 321; 19 C.R.R. 308, refd to. [para. 18].

Irwin Toy Ltd. v. Québec (Procureur gén­éral), [1989] 1 S.C.R. 927; 94 N.R. 167; 24 Q.A.C. 2; 58 D.L.R.(4th) 577; 25 C.P.R.(3d) 417, refd to. [para. 19].

Stein Estate v. Ship Kathy K, [1976] 2 S.C.R. 802; 6 N.R. 39; 62 D.L.R.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 23].

N.V. Bocimar S.A. v. Century Insurance Co. of Canada, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 1247; 76 N.R. 212, refd to. [para. 24].

Klimashewski v. Klimashewski Estate, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 754; 80 N.R. 396; 50 Man.R.(2d) 161, refd to. [para. 24].

National Corn Growers Association et al. v. Canadian Import Tribunal, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 1324; 114 N.R. 81; 74 D.L.R.(4th) 449, refd to. [para. 26].

Planet Development Corp. and Lester (W.W.) (1978) Ltd. v. United Associ­ation of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, Local 740, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 644; 123 N.R. 241; 88 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 15; 274 A.P.R. 15; 91 C.L.L.C. 14,002; 76 D.L.R.(4th) 389; 48 Admin. L.R. 1, refd to. [para. 26].

Gendron v. Supply and Services Union of the Public Service Alliance of Canada, Local 50057 et al., [1990] 1 S.C.R. 1298; 109 N.R. 321; 66 Man.R.(2d) 81, refd to. [para. 26].

Bell Canada v. Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1722; 97 N.R. 15, refd to. [para. 27].

Craton v. Winnipeg School Division No. 1 and Winnipeg Teachers' Association No. 1 of the Manitoba Teachers' Society, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 150; 61 N.R. 241; 38 Man.R.(2d) 1, refd to. [para. 35].

Harrison v. University of British Columbia (1986), 30 D.L.R.(4th) 206 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 70].

Human Rights Commission (Sask.) and Craig v. Saskatoon (City) and Saskatoon Professional Fire Fighters Union, Local 80, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 1297; 103 N.R. 161; 81 Sask.R. 263, refd to. [para. 80].

Clarke v. Edinburgh and District Tram­ways Co., [1919] S.C.(H.L.) 35, refd to. [para. 84].

Laurentide Motels Ltd. et al. v. Beauport (Ville) et al., [1989] 1 S.C.R. 705; 94 N.R. 1; 23 Q.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 84].

Lapointe v. Hôpital le Gardeur, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 351; 133 N.R. 153; 45 Q.A.C. 299, refd to. [para. 85].

Human Rights Commission (Ont.) and Bates v. Zurich Insurance Co. (1992), 138 N.R. 1 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 86].

Ontario Human Rights Commission v. City of North Bay (1977), 17 O.R.(2d) 712 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 87].

Insurance Corp. of British Columbia v. Heerspink and Director, Human Rights Code, [1982] 2 S.C.R. 145; 43 N.R. 168, refd to. [para. 93].

Ontario Human Rights Commission and O'Malley v. Simpsons Sears, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 536; 64 N.R. 161; 12 O.A.C. 241; 23 D.L.R.(4th) 321; 9 C.C.E.L. 185; 17 Admin. L.R. 89; 86 C.L.L.C. 17,002, refd to. [para. 93].

Central Alberta Dairy Pool v. Human Rights Commission (Alta.), [1990] 2 S.C.R. 489; 113 N.R. 161; 111 A.R. 241, refd to. [para. 97].

R. v. Videoflicks Ltd., [1986] 2 S.C.R. 713; 71 N.R. 161; 19 O.A.C. 239; 30 C.C.C.(3d) 385; 55 C.R.(3d) 193; 35 D.L.R.(4th) 1; 28 C.R.R. 1, refd to. [para. 100].

R. v. Edwards Books and Art Ltd. - see R. v. Videoflicks Ltd. et al.

Reference Re Compulsory Arbitration, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 313; 74 N.R. 99; 78 A.R. 1; 38 D.L.R.(4th) 161, refd to. [para. 100].

Reference Re Public Service Employee Relations Act (Alta.) - see Reference Re Compulsory Arbitration.

Public Service Alliance of Canada v. Canada, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 424; 75 N.R. 161, refd to. [para. 100].

Andrews v. Law Society of British Co­lumbia, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 143; 91 N.R. 255; [1989] 2 W.W.R. 289; 56 D.L.R.(4th) 1; 34 B.C.L.R.(2d) 273; 36 C.R.R. 193; 25 C.C.E.L. 255, refd to. [para. 100].

Black & Company v. Law Society of Alberta, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 591; 93 N.R. 266; 96 A.R. 352, refd to. [para. 100].

Stoffman et al. v. Vancouver General Hospital et al., [1990] 3 S.C.R. 483; 118 N.R. 241, refd to. [para. 104].

Tétrault-Gadoury v. Canada Employment and Immigration Commission, [1991] 2 S.C.R. 22; 126 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 107].

R. v. Keegstra, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 697; 117 N.R. 1; 114 A.R. 81; 1 C.R.(4th) 129; 77 Alta. L.R.(2d) 193; [1991] 2 W.W.R. 1; 61 C.C.C.(3d) 1; 3 C.R.R.(2d) 193, refd to. [para. 168].

R. v. Butler and McCord, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 452; 134 N.R. 81; 78 Man.R.(2d) 1; 16 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 168].

Ontario (Attorney General) v. Bear Island Foundation et al., [1991] 2 S.C.R. 570; 127 N.R. 147; 46 O.A.C. 396, refd to. [para. 171].

Statutes Noticed:

Alberta, Hansard, May 21, 1985, p. 1085 [para. 17].

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 1 [para. 6].

Charter Omnibus Act, S.A. 1985, c. 15, generally [para. 4].

Individual's Rights Protection Act, R.S.A. 1980, c. I-12, sect. 7(1), sect. 11.1 [para. 4]; sect. 33(1), sect. 33(2), sect. 33(4), sect. 33(6) [paras. 4, 81]; sect. 38(a) [para. 4].

Individual's Rights Protection Act, S.A. 1972, c. 2, generally [para. 4].

Individual's Rights Protection Amendment Act, S.A. 1985, c. 33, sect. 5 [para. 4].

Rules of Court (Alta.), rule 518 [para. 25].

Universities Academic Pension Act, S.A. 1978, c. 36, sect. 9 [para. 4].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Blackburn, Robert T., and Janet H. Law­rence, Aging and the Quality of Faculty Job Performance (1986), 23 Review of Educational Research 265, p. 271 [para. 48].

Cole, Stephen, Age and Scientific Per­formance (1979), 84 Am. J. Soc. 958, pp. 968-969 [para. 139].

Ford, Robert C., and Myron D. Fottler, Flexible Retirement: Slowing Early Re­tirement and Productive Older Employ­ees, in Human Resource Planning, p. 147 [para. 142].

Krashinsky, Michael, The Case for Elim­inating Mandatory Retirement: Why Economics and Human Rights Need Not Conflict (1988), 14 Canadian Public Policy 40, pp. 44 [para. 122]; 47 [para. 44].

London, J.R., Universities Should Prepare for Abolition of Mandatory Retirement, University of Toronto Bulletin, June 6, 1983, p. 10 [para. 163].

Necheles-Jansyn, Ruth F., Retirement in Academe: Special Case or Social Model, [1983] Aging and Work 175, p. 179 [para. 132].

Ontario, Commission on the Future Devel­opment of the Universities of Ontario, Ontario Universities, Futures and Options (1984), pp. 21-22 [para. 47].

Reid, Frank, Economic Aspects of Manda­tory Retirement (1987), pp. 11-12 [para. 134].

Roadburg, Alan, Aging: Retirement, Lei­sure and Work in Canada (1984), p. 22 [para. 159].

Walker, James W. and Harriet L. Lazer, The End of Mandatory Retirement: Im­plications for Management (1978), p. 7 [para. 142].

Counsel:

Sheila J. Greckol and Jo-Ann R. Kolmes, for the appellant;

Peter M. Owen, Q.C., and Greg A. Harding, for the respondent, Governors of the University of Alberta;

J. Leslie Wallace and Sarah FitzGerald, for the respondent, Alberta Human Rights Commission.

Solicitors of Record:

Chivers, Greckol & Kanee, Edmonton, Alberta, for the appellant;

Field & Field Perraton Masuch, Edmonton, Alberta, for the respondent, Board of Governors of the University of Alberta;

Alberta Human Rights Commission, Ed­monton, Alberta, on its own behalf.

This appeal was heard on May 5, 1992, before La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin and Iacobucci, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.

On September 24, 1992, the judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada was delivered in both official languages and the following opinions were filed:

Cory, J. (La Forest, Gonthier and Iaco­bucci, JJ., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 55;

L'Heureux-Dubé, J., dissenting (Mc­Lachlin, J., concurring) - see para­graphs 56 to 164;

Sopinka, J., dissenting - see paragraphs 165 to 172.