Harrison v. University of British Columbia; Connell v. University of British Columbia, (1990) 120 N.R. 1 (SCC)

• Judge: Dickson, C.J.C., Wilson, La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier and Cory, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: December 06, 1990
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1990), 120 N.R. 1 (SCC);120 NR 1;13 CHRR 317;1990 CanLII 61 (SCC);52 BCLR (2d) 105;77 DLR (4th) 55;[1990] 3 SCR 451;[1990] ACS no 123;2 CRR (2d) 193;[1991] SCJ No 123 (QL);[1991] 1 WWR 681

Harrison v. B.C. Univ. (1990), 120 N.R. 1 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

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

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

The University of British Columbia (appellant) John R. Connell (respondent) and Attorney General of Canada, Attorney General for Ontario, Attorney General of Nova Scotia and Attorney General of British Columbia (intervenors) The University of British Columbia (appellant) v. Robert Cameron Harrison (respondent) Attorney General of Canada, Attorney General for Ontario, Attorney General of Nova Scotia and Attorney General of British Columbia (intervenors)

(20785)

Indexed As: Harrison v. University of British Columbia; Connell v. University of British Columbia

Supreme Court of Canada

Dickson, C.J.C., Wilson, La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier and Cory, JJ.

December 6, 1990.

Summary:

The University of British Columbia established a mandatory retirement policy in 1939 for its faculty and administrative staff, which provided for retirement at age 65. A tenured professor and a non-union administrative officer applied for declarations that the policy violated s. 15(1) of the Charter on the ground of age discrimination. They also sought declarations that the definition of "age" in s. 1 of the British Columbia Human Rights Act, which restricted the prohibition against age discrimination in s. 8(1) to those between age 45 and 65, was also contrary to s. 15(1) of the Charter.

The trial judge, in a decision reported in [1986] 6 W.W.R. 7; 30 D.L.R.(4th) 206; 34 B.C.L.R. 57; 25 C.R.R. 1; 14 C.C.E.L. 90, dismissed the applications. He held that not only was the Charter inapplicable, there was no breach of s. 15(1) in any event. He further found that the s. 1 definition of "age" did not offend s. 15(1). The applicants appealed.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal, in a decision reported in [1988] 2 W.W.R. 688; 49 D.L.R.(4th) 687; 21 B.C.L.R.(2d) 145; 40 C.R.R. 205, allowed the appeals in part. The court of appeal held that s. 8(1) of the Human Rights Act violated s. 15(1) of the Charter and was not saved by either s. 1 or 15(2). Otherwise, the court affirmed the trial judge's decision. The university appealed. The applicants cross-appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada, Wilson and L'Heureux-Dubé, JJ., dissenting in part, allowed the appeals and dismissed the cross-appeals.

Civil Rights - Topic 995

Discrimination - Employment - Age - Retirement - The University of British Columbia had a mandatory retirement policy at age 65 for its faculty and administrative staff - For the reasons in McKinney v. University of Guelph et al., 118 N.R. 1, the Supreme Court of Canada (per La Forest, J., Dickson, C.J.C., Gonthier, Sopinka and Cory, JJ.), assuming that the Charter applied to the university, held that this policy constituted age discrimination contrary to s. 15(1) of the Charter, but was justified under s. 1 - See paragraphs 19 to 23.

Civil Rights - Topic 995

Discrimination - Employment - Age - Retirement - The definition of "age" in s. 1 of the British Columbia Human Rights Act restricted the protection against age discrimination in s. 8(1) to those between ages 45 and 65 - For the reasons in McKinney v. University of Guelph et al., 118 N.R. 1, the Supreme Court of Canada unanimously held that s. 8(1) violated s. 15(1) of the Charter - Only the majority of the court (La Forest, J., Wilson, C.J.C., Gonthier, Sopinka and Cory, JJ.), held that the section was nevertheless justified under s. 1 of the Charter - See paragraphs 19 to 20, 24, 42 to 54, 58 to 62.

Civil Rights - Topic 5583

Equality and protection of the law - Affirmative action programs - What constitute - Wilson, J., of the Supreme Court of Canada, in dissenting reasons, stated that for any measure to be characterized as an "affirmative action" measure within the meaning of s. 15(2) of the Charter, it must first be established that the measure is directed towards assuaging the effects of discrimination against a disadvantaged group - See paragraph 49.

Civil Rights - Topic 5658.1

Equality and protection of the law - Mandatory retirement - Universities - [See both Civil Rights - Topic 995].

Civil Rights - Topic 8311

Charter - Application - Non-governmental or private interference - Universities - The University of British Columbia had a policy of mandatory retirement at age 65 for its faculty and administrative staff - For the reasons in McKinney v. University of Guelph et al., 118 N.R. 1, the Supreme Court of Canada (per La Forest, J., Dickson, C.J.C., Gonthier and Sopinka, JJ.), held that the Charter of Rights was inapplicable to the university - See paragraphs 18, 20.

Civil Rights - Topic 8348

Charter - Application - Reasonable limits prescribed by law - [See both Civil Rights - Topic 995].

Education - Topic 4410

Universities - Professors - Removal - Mandatory retirement - [See both Civil Rights - Topic 995].

Words and Phrases

Government - The Supreme Court of Canada (per La Forest, J., Dickson, C.J.C., Gonthier and Sopinka, JJ.), held that the University of British Columbia was not part of "government" within the meaning of the word as found in s. 32(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982 - See paragraphs 18 to 20.

Cases Noticed:

Dolphin Delivery Ltd. v. Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, Local 580, [1986] 2 S.C.R. 573; 71 N.R. 83; 33 D.L.R.(4th) 175, refd to. [para. 10].

Re Andrews and Law Society of British Columbia (1986), 27 D.L.R.(4th) 600 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 13].

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, refd to. [para. 13].

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, refd to. [para. 15].

Attorney General for Alberta v. Attorney General of Canada, [1947] A.C. 503, refd to. [para. 16].

R. v. Turpin, Siddiqui and Claudzel, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1296; 96 N.R. 115; 34 O.A.C. 115; 69 C.R.(3d) 97, refd to. [para. 51].

Statutes Noticed:

Auditor General Act, R.S.B.C. 1979, c. 24, generally [paras. 18, 38].

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 1 [paras. 9, 13, 15-16, 23-25, 43, 54-55, 59]; sect. 15(1) [paras. 3, 5, 7-9, 13, 17, 20, 22, 24, 42-43, 45, 54, 59]; sect. 15(2) [paras. 9, 13-14, 45, 47-49]; sect. 32 [paras. 22, 26-27, 39, 41, 58].

Compensation Stabilization Act, S.B.C. 1982, c. 32, generally [paras. 18, 38-39].

Education Excellence Appropriation Act, S.B.C. 1986, c. 6, generally [para. 35].

Financial Administration Act, S.B.C. 1981, c. 15, generally [paras. 18, 38].

Human Rights Act, S.B.C. 1984, c. 22, sect. 1 [paras. 3, 8, 25, 44-47, 54]; sect. 8 [paras. 3, 8, 44-45]; sect. 8(1) [paras. 3, 24, 51-53]; sect. 8(3)(b) [para. 52].

Industrial Relations Reform Act, S.B.C. 1987, c. 24, generally [paras. 18, 38].

University Act, R.S.B.C. 1979, c. 419, generally [paras. 4, 29]; sect. 2, sect. 3(2), sect. 19, sect. 22(1) [para. 29]; sect. 27 [para. 31]; sect. 27(f) [para. 42]; sect. 30, sect. 33 [para. 31]; sect. 34(l)(j) [para. 29]; sect. 36(f), sect. 36(i), sect. 36(q), sect. 37 [para. 34]; sect. 46, sect. 46.1(2) [para. 33]; sect. 46.2 [para. 32]; sect. 47(2), sect. 50, sect. 51, sect. 64, sect. 69, sect. 71, sect. 72, sect. 74 [para. 31].

University Foundations Act, R.S.B.C. 1979, c. 420.5, sect. 1, sect. 2, sect. 4 [para. 36].

Counsel:

D.M.M. Goldie, Q.C., and P.R. Sheen, for the appellant and cross-respondent;

Peter A. Gall, Donald J. Jordan, Q.C., Robin Elliot and Susan P. Arnold, for the respondent and cross-appellant, John R. Connell;

F. Andrew Schroeder and Cheryl L. Vickers, for the respondent and cross-appellant, Robert Cameron Harrison;

Duff Friesen, Q.C., and Virginia McRae Lajeunesse, for the intervenor, the Attorney General of Canada;

Janet E. Minor and Robert E. Charney, for the intervenor, the Attorney General of Ontario;

Alison W. Scott, for the intervenor, the Attorney General of Nova Scotia;

E.R.A. Edwards, Q.C., and George H. Copley, for the intervenor, the Attorney General of British Columbia.

Solicitors of Record:

Russell & DuMoulin, Vancouver, British Columbia, for the appellant and cross-respondent;

Jordan & Gall, Vancouver, British Columbia, for the respondent and cross-appellant, John R. Connell;

Schroeder & Company, Vancouver, British Columbia, for the respondent and cross-appellant, Robert Cameron Harrison;

Attorney General of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, for the intervenor, the Attorney General of Canada;

Attorney General for Ontario, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervenor, the Attorney General for Ontario;

Attorney General of Nova Scotia, Halifax, Nova Scotia, for the intervenor the Attorney General of Nova Scotia;

Ministry of Attorney General, Victoria, British Columbia, for the intervenor, the Attorney General of British Columbia.

These appeals were heard before Dickson, C.J.C., Wilson, La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier and Cory, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada on May 17 and 18, 1989.

On December 6, 1990 the Supreme Court delivered the following opinions in both official languages:

La Forest, J. (Dickson, C.J.C., and Gonthier, J., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 19;

Sopinka, J. - see paragraph 20;

Cory, J. - see paragraphs 21 to 24;

Wilson, J., dissenting in part - see paragraphs 25 to 57;

L'Heureux-Dubé, J., dissenting in part - see paragraphs 58 to 64.