McKinney v. University of Guelph et al., (1987) 24 O.A.C. 241 (CA)

• Judge: Howland, C.J.O., Houlden, Blair, Thorson and Finlayson, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Ontario)
• Case Date: December 10, 1987
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: (1987), 24 O.A.C. 241 (CA)

McKinney v. Guelph Univ. (1987), 24 O.A.C. 241 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

David Walter McKinney, Jr. (appellant) v. Board of Governors of the University of Guelph and Attorney General of Ontario (respondents)

Horacio Roque-Nunez (appellant) v. Board of Governors of Laurentian University and Attorney General of Ontario (respondents)

Syed Ziauddin (appellant) v. Board of Governors of Laurentian University and Attorney General of Ontario (respondents)

John A. Buttrick (appellant) v. Board of Governors of York University and Attorney General of Ontario (respondents)

Hollis Rinehart on his own behalf and on behalf of all other members of the York University Faculty Association (appellants) v. Board of Governors of York University and Attorney General of Ontario (respondents)

Bernard Blishen (appellant) v. Board of Governors of York University and Attorney General of Ontario (respondents)

Ritvars Bregzis (appellant) v. Governing Council of the University of Toronto and Attorney General of Ontario (respondents)

Tillo E. Kuhn (appellant) v. Board of Governors of York University and Attorney General of Ontario (respondents)

Norman Zacour (appellant) v. Governing Council of the University of Toronto and Attorney General of Ontario (respondents)

Indexed As: McKinney v. University of Guelph et al.

Ontario Court of Appeal

Howland, C.J.O., Houlden, Blair, Thorson and Finlayson, JJ.A.

December 10, 1987.

Summary:

Seven professors and one librarian employed by the respondent universities and one professor suing in a representative capacity applied separately for an order that the mandatory retirement policies of the universities were of no force and effect because they conflicted with the Charter of Rights. Specifically, they sought, inter alia, a declaration that s. 9(a) of the Ontario Human Rights Code was inconsistent with s. 15(a) of the Charter and was therefore of no force and effect.

The trial judge, in a decision reported in 57 O.R.(2d) 1, held that the Charter did not apply to mandatory retirement policies and contractual terms of the universities. The court further held that to the extent that s. 9(a) of the Human Rights Code defined "age" to be less than 65 years, it was inconsistent with s. 15(a) of the Charter. The court further held that although s. 9(a) of the Code was inconsistent with s. 15(1) of the Charter, the section was a reasonable limit prescribed by law within s. 1 of the Charter. Accordingly, the court dismissed the applications. The professors and librarian appealed.

The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals.

Blair, J.A., dissenting, agreed that the Charter did not apply to universities and that s. 9(a) of the Human Rights Code was inconsistent with s. 15(1) of the Charter, but would have held that the section was not justifiable under s. 1 of the Charter.

Civil Rights - Topic 904

Discrimination - Scope of basis for discrimination - The Ontario Court of Appeal held that the various grounds of discrimination as enumerated in s. 15(1) of the Charter of Rights should be subject to an equal standard of review, and particularly that discrimination based on age should not be subject to a lesser standard of review than other types of discrimination within s. 15(1) - See paragraphs 94 to 111.

Civil Rights - Topic 983

Discrimination - Employment - Discrimination - What constitutes - Under s. 9(a) of the Ontario Human Rights Code, protection from discrimination in employment because of age did not extend to persons under 18 or over 65 - The Ontario Court of Appeal held that "discrimination" within the meaning of s. 9(a) meant treatment which, when viewed objectively, was tangibly adverse, unfavourable or prejudicial - The court held that such treatment need not also be unreasonable in order to constitute discrimination - See paragraphs 76 to 92.

Civil Rights - Topic 995

Discrimination - Employment - Age - Retirement - S. 9(a) of the Ontario Human Rights Code provided that protection from discrimination in employment because of age did not extend to persons under 18 or over 65 - In a case respecting mandatory retirement for Ontario university professors and librarians, the Ontario Court of Appeal held that to the extent that s. 9(a) defined age as less than 65 years, s. 9(a) was inconsistent with s. 15(1) of the Charter - See paragraphs 58 to 113 - The court held, however, that s. 9(a) was a reasonable limit prescribed by law within s. 1 of the Charter - See paragraphs 114 to 173.

Civil Rights - Topic 995

Discrimination - Employment - Age - Retirement - Several Ontario universities had mandatory retirement policies for faculty and librarians over age 65 - The Ontario Court of Appeal held that these policies were not unconstitutional - The court held that the policies constituted discrimination because of age contrary to s. 15(1) of the Charter, but were reasonable limits prescribed by law within s. 1 of the Charter.

Civil Rights - Topic 5658.1

Equality and protection of the law - Mandatory retirement - Universities - [see second Civil Rights - Topic 995 above].

Civil Rights - Topic 8301

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - General - The Ontario Court of Appeal stated that the Charter was not enacted as a replacement for the federal Human Rights Act or the provincial Human Rights Codes - The Charter recognizes existing rights and freedoms, fulfils the gestation of others and creates new ones - It acts as a guarantee of these rights and freedoms and is a direction to government at the federal and provincial levels that no action of theirs is to be in conflict with its standards in the human and civil rights field - See paragraph 34.

Civil Rights - Topic 8311

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Application - Nongovernmental or private interference - Universities - The Ontario Court of Appeal held that the Charter did not apply to universities in Ontario or to employment contracts between the universities and their employees - See paragraphs 16 to 57.

Civil Rights - Topic 8348

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Application - Exceptions - Reasonable limits prescribed by law - [see first Civil Rights - Topic 995 above].

Words and Phrases

Discrimination - The Ontario Court of Appeal discussed the meaning of the word "discrimination" as found in s. 9(a) of the Ontario Human Rights Code, S.O. 1981, c. 53 - See paragraphs 76 to 92.

Words and Phrases

Government - The Ontario Court of Appeal held that the word "government" as found in s. 32(1) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, did not include universities in Ontario - See paragraphs 19 to 57.

Cases Noticed:

McKinney and Board of Governors of the University of Guelph et al. and seven other applications, Re (1986), 57 O.R.(2d) 1, refd to. [para. 2].

Blainey v. Ontario Hockey Association (1986), 14 O.A.C. 194; 54 O.R.(2d) 513, refd to. [para. 35].

Dolphin Delivery Ltd. v. Retail, Wholesale & Department Store Union, Local 580 et al., [1986] 2 S.C.R. 573; 71 N.R. 83, refd to. [para. 36].

Syndicat des détaillants, grossistes et magasins à rayons, section locale 580 - see Dolphin Delivery Ltd.

Bhindi et al. and British Columbia Projectionists Local 348 et al., Re (1986), 29 D.L.R.(4th) 47 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 37].

Southam Inc. v. Hunter et al., [1984] 2 S.C.R. 145; 55 N.R. 241; 55 A.R. 291; 9 C.R.R. 355; 14 C.C.C.(3d) 97; 41 C.R.(3d) 97; [1984] 6 W.W.R. 577; 33 Alta. L.R.(2d) 193; 27 B.L.R. 297; 84 D.T.C. 6467; 2 C.P.R.(3d) 1; 11 D.L.R.(4th) 641, refd to. [para. 38].

R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd., [1985] 1 S.C.R. 295; [1985] 3 W.W.R. 481; 58 N.R. 81; 60 A.R. 161; 18 C.C.C.(3d) 385; 18 D.L.R.(4th) 321; 37 Alta. L.R.(2d) 97; 85 CLLC 14,013; 13 C.R.R. 64, refd to. [para. 38].

Operation Dismantle Inc. et al. v. Canada et al., [1985] 1 S.C.R. 441; 59 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 38].

Blum v. Yaretsky (1982), 457 U.S. 991, refd to. [para. 39].

Lavigne and Ontario Public Service Employees' Union et al., Re (1986), 55 O.R.(2d) 449 (H.C.J.), not consd. [para. 43].

Ontario English Catholic Teachers Association et al. v. Essex County Roman Catholic Separate School Board (1987), 18 O.A.C. 271; 58 O.R.(2d) 545 (Div. Ct.), not consd. [para. 43].

Klein and Dvorak v. Law Society of Upper Canada (1985), 8 O.A.C. 161; 16 D.L.R.(4th) 489 (Div. Ct.), not consd. [para. 43].

McCutcheon and City of Toronto et al., Re (1983), 147 D.L.R.(3d) 193, refd to. [para. 44].

Perehinec v. Northern Pipeline Agency, [1983] 2 S.C.R. 513; 50 N.R. 248, refd to. [para. 50].

R. v. Eldorado Nuclear Limited; R. v. Uranium Canada Limited, [1983] 2 S.C.R. 551; 50 N.R. 120, refd to. [para. 51].

Berardinelli v. Ontario Housing Corp. et al. (1978), 90 D.L.R.(3d) 481, refd to. [para. 52].

R. v. R.L. (1986), 14 O.A.C. 318; 26 C.C.C.(3d) 417, refd to. [para. 61].

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. 66].

R. v. Videoflicks et al., [1986] 2 S.C.R. 713; 71 N.R. 161; 19 O.A.C. 239, refd to. [para. 66].

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

Ontario Film and Video Appreciation Society and Ontario Board of Censors, Re (1984), 2 O.A.C. 388; 45 O.R.(2d) 80; 5 D.L.R.(4th) 766, affirming (1983), 41 O.R.(2d) 583; 147 D.L.R.(3d) 58 (D.C.), refd to. [para. 66].

Federal Republic of Germany and Rauca, Re (1983), 41 O.R.(2d) 225; 145 D.L.R.(3d) 638, refd to. [para. 66].

Southam and The Queen (No. 1), Re (1983), 41 O.R.(2d) 113; 146 D.L.R.(3d) 408, refd to. [para. 66].

R. v. Videoflicks (1984), 5 O.A.C. 1; 48 O.R.(2d) 395; 14 D.L.R.(4th) 10, refd to. [para. 66].

Reference Re Roman Catholic Separate High Schools Funding (1986), 13 O.A.C. 241; 53 O.R.(2d) 513; 25 D.L.R.(4th) 1 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 67].

Andrews v. Law Society of British Columbia et al. (1986), 27 D.L.R.(4th) 600, refd to. [para. 69].

R. v. McDonald (1985), 10 O.A.C. 321; 51 O.R.(2d) 745; 21 C.C.C.(3d) 330, refd to. [para. 71].

R. v. LeGallant (1986), 6 B.C.L.R.(2d) 105, refd to. [para. 79].

Huson v. Mah (1986), 7 B.C.L.R.(2d) 21, refd to. [para. 79].

Harrison v. University of B.C., [1986] 6 W.W.R. 7, refd to. [para. 79].

Stoffman v. Vancouver General Hospital, [1986] 6 W.W.R. 23, refd to. [para. 79].

N.M. v. Superintendent of Family and Child Services and the Minister of Human Resources (1986), 10 B.C.L.R.(2d) 234, refd to. [para. 79].

Wilson and Maxson v. Medical Services Commission of B.C. et al.; Arnason et al. v. Medical Services Commission et al. (1987), 9 B.C.L.R.(2d) 350, refd to. [para. 79].

R. v. Hanson (1986), 32 C.C.C.(3d) 198, refd to. [para. 79].

R. v. McPherson (1986), 47 Alta. L.R.(2d) 64; 73 A.R. 384, refd to. [para. 79].

Reference Re Family Benefits Act (N.S.), Section 5 (1986), 75 N.S.R.(2d) 338; 186 A.P.R. 338, refd to. [para. 80].

Smith Kline & French Laboratories Ltd. et al. v. Canada (Attorney General) et al. (1986), 78 N.R. 30; 12 C.P.R. (3d) 385, refd to. [para. 81].

Wright and Attorney General of Canada, Re (1986), 56 O.R.(2d) 636, refd to. [para. 82].

R. v. Century 21 Ramos Realty Inc. and Ramos (1987), 19 O.A.C. 25; 58 O.R.(2d) 737, refd to. [para. 83].

R. v. Ertel (1987), 20 O.A.C. 251, refd to. [para. 84].

R. v. Turpin, Siddiqui and Clauzel (1987), 22 O.A.C. 261, refd to. [para. 86].

R. v. Hamilton, Asselin and McCullagh (1987), 17 O.A.C. 241; 57 O.R.(2d) 412 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 87].

Williams v. Lee Optical Co. (1955), 348 U.S. 483, refd to. [para. 99].

McGowan v. Maryland (1961), 366 U.S. 420, refd to. [para. 100].

Korematsu v. United States (1944), 323 U.S. 214, refd to. [para. 102].

Brown v. Board of Education (I) (1954), 347 U.S. 483; 74 S. Ct. 686, refd to. [para. 103].

Loving v. Virginia (1967), 388 U.S. 1, refd to. [para. 103].

Craig v. Boren (1976), 429 U.S. 190, refd to. [para. 104].

Massachusetts Board of Retirement v. Murgia (1976), 427 U.S. 307, refd to. [para. 105].

Vance v. Bradley (1979), 440 U.S. 93, refd to. [para. 105].

City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center (1985), 473 U.S. 432, refd to. [para. 108].

Anti-Inflation Reference (1976), 9 N.R. 541; 68 D.L.R.(3d) 452 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 122].

Harrison and Connell v. University of British Columbia (1986), 30 D.L.R.(4th) 206 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 126].

Waite v. Government Communication Headquarters, [1983] I.C.R. 653 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 155].

Mittelstaedt v. Board of Trustees of the University of Arkansas (1980), 487 F. Supp. 960, refd to. [para. 157].

Lamb v. Scripps College (1980), 627 F.2d 1015, refd to. [para. 157].

Klain v. Pensylvania State University (1977), 434 F. Supp. 571, refd to. [para. 157].

R. v. Burnshine, [1975] S.C.R. 693; 2 N.R. 53, refd to. [para. 167].

R. v. Noble (1984), 6 O.A.C. 11; 48 O.R.(2d) 643, refd to. [para. 171].

Southam Inc. and R. (No. 1), Re (1983), 41 O.R.(2d) 113 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 181].

Canadian Newspapers Co. v. Canada; R. v. D.D. (1985), 7 O.A.C. 161; 44 C.R.(3d) 97, refd to. [para. 186].

R. v. Rao (1984), 4 O.A.C. 162; 46 O.R.(2d) 80 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 187].

R. v. Seaboyer; R. v. Gayme (1987), 20 O.A.C. 345, refd to. [para. 192].

R. v. Ladouceur (1987), 20 O.A.C. 1; 57 C.R.(3d) 45, refd to. [para. 194].

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 1 [paras. 60, 64-66, 69, 78, 90-91, 97, 111-112, 120, 124, 126, 157, 168, 171-173, 179, 182-183, 202-203]; sect. 15(1) [paras. 14-15, 58, 60, 63, 67-70, 72-74, 77-78, 89-95, 111-113, 115, 168, 175, 181, 191, 201, 203]; sect. 32(1) [paras. 19-20, 24].

Human Rights Code, S.O. 1981, c. 53, sect. 4(1) [paras. 10, 59-60]; sect. 9(a) [paras. 10-11, 14-15, 39, 58-60, 62, 69, 72, 90-94, 113-115, 127-128, 132-135, 147-148, 151-152, 165, 170-173, 175, 178, 191, 200-201, 203-204]; sect. 14 [para. 180]; sect. 24(1), sect. 24(2) [para. 180].

Constitution Act 1867, sect. 52(1) [paras. 19-20, 57, 176].

Human Rights Act, S.C. 1976-77, c. 33 [para. 21].

Canadian Bill of Rights, R.S.C. 1970, App. III [para. 21]; sect. 1(b) [para. 167]; sect. 2 [para. 21].

University of Toronto Act, S.O. 1971, c. 56 [para. 25].

University of Guelph Act, S.O. 1964, c. 120 [para. 26].

Laurentian University of Sudbury Act, S.O. 1960, c. 151 [para. 27].

York University Act, S.O. 1965, c. 143 [para. 28].

University Expropriation Powers Act, R.S.O. 1980, c. 515 [para. 29].

Degree Granting Act, S.O. 1983, c. 36 [para. 29].

Labour Relations Act, R.S.O. 1980, c. 228 [para. 32].

Judicial Review Procedure Act, R.S.O. 1980, c. 224 [para. 48].

Public Authorities Protection Act, R.S.O. 1980, c. 406 [paras. 50, 52-53].

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights [para. 64].

European Convention on Human Rights [para. 64].

United States Constitution, Fourteenth Amendment [para. 96].

Age Discrimination Act, S.O. 1966, c. 3 [para. 128].

Human Rights Code Amendment Act, S.O. 1972, c. 119 [para. 129].

Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 (U.K.), c. 44, sect. 64(1)(b) [para. 155].

Social Security Act 1935 (U.S.A.), 49 Stat. 620 [para. 156].

Age Discrimination in Employment Act 1967 (U.S.A.), 29 U.S.C. [para. 158]; para. 621 et seq. [para. 156].

Age Discrimination in Employment Amendments 1986, Public Law 99-592 [para. 159].

Constitution Act 1867 (U.K.), 30-31 Vict., c. 3 [para. 167].

Universal Declaration of Human Rights [para. 167].

Employment Standards Act, R.S.O. 1980, c. 137, sect. 34(2) [para. 180].

Employment Standards Act Regulations, R.R.O. 1980, reg. 282 [para. 180].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Life Together, Ontario Human Rights Commission Report (1977) [para. 12].

Tarnopolsky, W.S., The Equality Rights in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (1983), 61 Can. Bar Rev. 242 [para. 40].

Hogg, Constitutional Law of Canada (2nd Ed. 1985), pp. 671, 674, 677, fn. 140 [para. 41]; 680 [para. 65].

Equality Rights, Report of the Parliamentary Committee on (October, 1985), p. 21 [para. 62].

Shorter Oxford English Dictionary [para. 75].

Oxford English Dictionary (1961) [para. 75].

Webster's New World Dictionary of the American Language [para. 5].

Tarnopolsky, "Discrimination and Affirmative Action", in Discrimination and the Law (2nd Ed. 1985), pp. 3-4 [para. 75].

Gibson, Dale, The Law of the Charter, p. 137 [para. 110].

Hogg, Peter W., Proof of Facts in Constitutional Cases (1976), U. of T. Law J. 386 [para. 121].

Swinton, Katherine, "What do the Courts Want from the Social Sciences?", in Charter Litigation (Sharpe Ed. 1987), pp. 206-207 [para. 125].

Hansard (May 15, 1981), p. 743 [para. 130]; (December 1, 1981), p. 4097 [para. 130]; (December 7, 1981), p. 4313 [para. 131].

United States Congressional Record, House, October 17, 1986, H. 11283 [para. 159].

Counsel:

Jeffrey Sack, Q.C., James K. McDonald and Stephen M. Barrett, for the appellants;

Pierre Genest, Q.C., John C. Murray and S. John Page, for the respondent, The Governing Council of the University of Toronto;

George W. Adams, Q.C., and Richard J. Charney, for the respondent, The Board of Governors of York University;

Christopher G. Riggs, Q.C., and Michael A. Hines, for the respondent, The Board of Governors of Guelph University;

Mary Eberts and Michael A. Penny, for the respondent, The Board of Governors of Laurentian University;

Janet E. Minor and Robert E. Charney, for the respondent, The Attorney General of Ontario.

These appeals were heard before Howland, C.J.O., Houlden, Blair, Thorson and Finlayson, JJ.A., of the Ontario Court of Appeal on May 13-15, 1987. The decision of the Court of Appeal was released on December 10, 1987, when the following opinions were filed:

Howland, C.J.O., Houlden, Thorson and Finlayson, JJ.A. - see paragraphs 1 to 174;

Blair, J.A., dissenting - see paragraphs 175 to 204.