Mckinney v. University of Guelph The subsequent paragraphs contain a general analysis as well as a description of the legal questions and principles that were raised in the age discrimination case of Mckinney v. University of Guelph. This case raised the issue of whether a company or organization (in this case, a post secondary institution for education) should have jurisdiction over the age at which an individual must retire. Additionally, this document contains an analysis of the laws of mandatory retirement and how they are still currently in effect in countries such as China. Along with the aforementioned is a description of how mandatory retirement is imperative to population management, …show more content…
V. University of Guelph. Summary and Analysis In the late 1990’s, The Supreme Court of Canada oversaw the case Mckinney v. University of Guelph, a case that acted as a direct challenge to the mandatory retirement policies of four universities. The respondents in this case were the University of Guelph, Laurentian University, York University, and The University of Toronto, which all shared a retirement policy that ensured the voluntary departure of anyone above sixty-five years of age. The case was brought before The Supreme Court by eight professors and a librarian after both the Trial and Appeal courts ruled in favour of the universities involved. The appellants cited Section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (which ensures the right to equal treatment before and …show more content…
University of Guelph brought forth a number of legal questions and principles that needed to be addressed, the first of which being whether or not a university is considered a “government actor”. After a lengthy debate and the usage of the “effective control test”, The Supreme Court provided an answer to this question when they declared the institution of university as a non-government actor. This allowed the respondents (the four universities) to continue on with their policies of mandatory retirement at the age of sixty-five. The second major question posed in this case is whether or not an organization should have the right to violate sections of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms for the betterment of the organization, those who are employed by it, and those involved with it’s activities. This question was answered when The Supreme Court decided that a company may violate the rights of a person if the reason as to why is bona fide. In the case of Mckinney. v. University of Guelph, the reasons of conserving high academic standards and opening up tenure positions were accepted, and the violation was permitted. These two questions were imperative to the outcome of Mckinney. v. University of Guelph in a sense that the answers provided in the case helped to provide insight into how one's rights can be limited both within and beyond a government setting. This insight helped people understand why the appeal was denied in what seemed like a
The Canadian government only protects 18 out of 30 rights in the Universal Declaration and other important rights are ignored. For example, in article 26 of the Universal Declaration, it states that everyone has the right to education. This law is not included in the Charter but I think it is very im...
The push for Congress to pass legislation protecting the rights of employees and their retirement was inevitable. Retirement plans are extremely important for all working individuals. Having funds to keep or exceed ones current standard of living and to enjoy one’s life beyond expectations after retire...
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms has long been the legal document that protects Canadian citizens from infringements made by unscrupulous politicians and legislators. However, there are questions explored about the Sections of the Charter and in those of Section 7 in particular. This is because of the protective function of Section 7 and its obligations of the protection of a citizen’s rights to life, liberty and security of the person. There are third parties that could be posing “threats” to Charter interests and therefore the extents of Section 7 in terms of its protective function for individuals’ rights are put into question. Section 7 of the Charter says that “[E]veryone has the right to life, liberty and the security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.” The meaning of Section 7 is to adhere to each individual’s right to the sanctity of life, their physical liberty in a narrow sense, and the integrity of the person is to be kept secure. However, what would the extent of Section 7 be or moreover, what is the extent of each protected interest? The objective of this paper is to examine the extents of Section 7 of the Charter in which the focus is on the protected interests of life, liberty and security of the person. Each protected interest will be discussed in depth with its relationship to a specific Canadian court case. This will help to determine the extent of Section 7 and therefore help understand how much the Charter protects the freedom of Canadian citizens. For right to life, the First Nation communities in Canada had ‘high risk’ of threats to health in their water systems according to Health Canada. The focus of this topic...
“Honey, you’re not a person, now get back in the kitchen and make me a sandwich!” If a husband were to say these words to his wife today, he would likely receive a well-deserved smack to the face. It is not until recently that Canadian women have received their status as people and obtained equal rights as men. Women were excluded from an academic education and received a lesser pay than their male counter parts. With the many hardships women had to face, women were considered the “slave of slaves” (Women’s Rights). In the past century, women have fought for their rights, transitioning women from the point of being a piece of property to “holding twenty-five percent of senior positions in Canada” (More women in top senior positions: Report). The Married Women’s Property Act, World War I, The Person’s Case, and Canadian Human Rights Act have gained Canadian women their rights.
Government of Canada. (2011, May 26). Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Retrieved May 30, 2011, from Government of Canada Department of Justice: http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/Charter/page-1.html#anchorbo-ga:l_I-gb:s_2
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was enacted under the Pierre Trudeau government on April 17, 1982. According to Phillip Bryden, “With the entrenchment of the Charter into the Canadian Constitution, Canadians were not only given an explicit definition of their rights, but the courts were empowered to rule on the constitutionality of government legislation” (101). Prior to 1982, Canada’s central constitutional document was the British North America Act of 1867. According to Kallen, “The BNA Act (the Constitution Act, 1867) makes no explicit reference to human rights” (240). The adoption of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms significantly transformed the operation of Canada’s political system. Presently, Canadians define their needs and complaints in human rights terms. Bryden states, “More and more, interest groups and minorities are turning to the courts, rather than the usual political processes, to make their grievances heard” (101). Since it’s inception in 1982 the Charter has become a very debatable issue. A strong support for the Charter remains, but there also has been much criticism toward the Charter. Academic critics of the Charter such as Robert Martin believe that the Charter is doing more harm than good, and is essentially antidemocratic and UN-Canadian. I believe that Parliament’s involvement in implementing the Charter is antidemocratic, although, the Charter itself represents a democratic document. Parliament’s involvement in implementing the Charter is antidemocratic because the power of the executive is enhanced at the expense of Parliament, and the power of the judiciary is enhanced at the expense of elected officials, although, the notwithstanding clause continues to provide Parliament with a check on...
In 2005, the supreme court of Canada ruled that the Québec health insurance act and the hospital insurance act prohibiting private medical insurance in instances when long wait times are a reality, violated the Québec charter of human rights and freedoms. The vote was 4 to 3. This ruling is only binding in the province of Québec but does set a president should the argument come up in other provinces or territories. Leading this fight was a 73-year-old man, George Zeliotis, who was a patient on...
A component of Canada’s Constitution is the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This supreme law of Canada holds our common values as a nation. Queen Elizabeth and Prime Minister, Pierre Trudeau, signed the Constitution Act in 1982, this act includes the British North America Act and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.Governments stating new laws are guided by this charter. When applying these laws, courts are then guided by the same charter. It is important that we recognize the peace and clarity that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms brought upon our country. Before the Charter existed, there was limited solutions to unfair laws passed by an elected government, this led to a lack of protection for minority rights or fundamental freedoms.
(2007, November 7). Nearing Age 50 or Retirement? Watch Out for Age Discrimination. Ascribe Newswire: Health, p. 3. Retrieved from Health Source - Consumer Edition database
Age discrimination issue is getting serious with the modernization and industrialization of the United States. However, the issue did not catch policy makers’ attention until WWII (1939-1945). The following part shows the time prior the Age Discrimination of Act 1967.
Uhlenberg, Peter. 1992. “Population Aging and Social Policy.” Annual Review, Sociology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.
The Canadian Pension Plan (CPP) helps people who are planning to go into retirement. However, some people going into retirement will face problematic issues and will lead to anxiety and depression. Marxism is an economic power and material wealth create a situation of natural competition between different classes in society. The millennials and the baby boomers clashing at work because it's not easy to get jobs in the field where it may be in because the employers want employees who are proficient in the work. Millennials may be young urban and educated that but it is easier to have employees who have the experience and skills, the baby boomers. The retirement of the baby boomers represents a challenge and response theory. A theory, in which every society faces an initial challenge posed by its environment. External factors such as Population changes. While the baby boomers may have a higher life expectancy due to the advancement in technology of the impact of medical research sooner or later there is going to be a need to replace them in terms of jobs, paying of taxes, and other reasons to keep society functioning normal. Therefore, this conflict propels change to the economic system and in society as a
In recent years’ individuals and corporations noticed retirement age was becoming an issue. Individuals didn’t have the desire or possibly the financial support to be let go from their company at age sixty-five. Freedom fifty-five was becoming less of a reality and more of a nightmare for Canadians. In Dec, 2006 the Canadian government came to the conclusion to terminate a mandatory retirement age. “Before mandatory retirement rules were changed in Canada, an employer could go in and say ‘you’re over 65, Clean out your desk” (CBC News Business, 2009). Traditionally companies have focused on cutting costs and hiring new employees with new ideas however companies never valued experience, knowledge and relationships. “Today, people are living longer and have more active lives” (CBC News Business, 2009) individuals have the desire and need to work past sixty-five. The qualities the baby-boomer generation brings to organizations out weighs the costs of
Age discrimination has its root in history. From generation to generation, people have paid a great deal of attention to age as an important part of the recruiting process. It refers to the rejection of opportunities on the basis of age. In the workplace, these rejections can be seen when the managers consider age as a significant factor to make decisions about recruitment, promotion and dismissal. According to the “Age Discrimination” in the US’s Employment Act of 1946, if a candidate is forty years old or older and he/she receives limited opportunities to get a job because of his/her age, that person may have suffered unlawful age discrimination (qtd. by “AARP” 3). As The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD) in 2005 reports, 22% of managers surveyed admitted that their selection decisions were influenced by age, and also 59% of them claimed to personally experience age discrimination. Currently, there is a hot debate about the effectiveness of employees based on age. Without a doubt, age discrimination should be eliminated because it can lead to financial loss, loss of talent employees and an unfair recruiting process.
Martin Lyon Levine, Age Discrimination and the Mandatory Retirement Controversy; The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore and London, 1988.