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…
and the betterment of society. Finally, this document contains my own thoughts regarding the decision made by The Supreme Court in the case of Mckinney.
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…
under the law without discrimination based on race, religion, age, etc.) as they argued that they had not been given equal opportunity as a consequence of their age. They also argued the fact that universities should be considered “government actors” (due to the funding they receive from the Canadian government) and as such, they should operate in accordance with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The case ensued and the appeal made by the nine appellants was eventually denied for a number of reasons. When making the decision on whether or not universities were to be considered “government actors”, The Supreme Court alluded to Section 32 of the charter which involves the application and capacity of the Charter in certain situations. The Supreme Court justices enabled the use of the “effective control test”, which thoroughly considers the government's role in an organization or institution. In essence, the test asks three simple questions: “Is there a law that directs how the institution will operate?” “Does the government appoint the majority of the institution's board of directors?” “Does the institution have any history or guarantees of independent action from government?” Following the usage of the “effective control test”, The Supreme Court declared that universities were not to be considered “government actors”. This meant that the four universities did not have to act according to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms when creating the policies regarding the people they employ. This was only applicable, however, if the universities could justify the reason for the violation of a charter right. In the case of Mckinney. v. University of Guelph, the respondents proclaimed that they had the right to violate Section 15 of the Charter in order to preserve the high academic standards brought forth by the four universities. This argument stemmed from the idea that those who are over sixty-five years of age are generally at a disadvantage both physically and mentally. Additionally, the four universities argued that the mandatory retirement policies were in place to open up tenure positions for younger professors. They also argued that the discrimination of people over age sixty-five was valid due to the presence of pre-existing social and monetary programs that support those over sixty-five years of age. For these reasons and more, the nine appellants lost the case. They were not treated to the permanent position they requested or the damages they sought after their mandatory retirement. Legal Questions and Principles The case of Mckinney v.
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
one-sided case in favour of the nine appellants. Laws of Mandatory Retirement Until December 12, 2006, mandatory retirement was commonplace throughout Canada, specifically in Ontario due to the fact that employers in Ontario could enforce such a policy without incident. The Ontario Human Rights Commission was powerless to act against age based discrimination. Today is different, anyone who feels as if they are being discriminated against based on their age can file a complaint with the Ontario Human Rights Commission. Organizations in Ontario are no longer allowed to have a policy regarding mandatory retirement with exceptions for certain situations where there is a legitimate reason as to why retirement should be enforced. This happens in certain occupations where the general physical and mental disadvantages that plague those who are over sixty-five years of age begin to affect the performance of the person who is employed. Some of these occupations include: Pilots, due to their reliance on their five senses (especially sight), Court Justices (to keep decisions sound and just), and law enforcement officers (due to the obvious reliance on the physique of an officer; the stronger the officer, the better he would be at dealing with criminals). This is not an exhaustive list and it does not take into account the fact that the mandatory retirement age for a number of different occupations changes depending on where you are in the world. For example, the typical mandatory retirement age for an Air Traffic Controller is fifty-six years of age, however, in the United Kingdom there is no mandatory retirement age for the profession. Additionally, many countries continue to enforce a mandatory retirement age across all occupations. A prime example of a country that partakes in a national mandatory retirement age is China. In China, the current mandatory retirement age is sixty and fifty for men and women respectively in laborious fields and sixty-five and fifty-five for those employed in non labour-intensive jobs. China is an example of a country where a mandatory retirement age is imperative due to the immense population it supports. With almost fifty percent of the population in their prime working years (twenty-five to fifty-four years of age), a mandatory retirement age is necessary to ensure that almost four-hundred million people get a chance to work a meaningful job at some point in their lives. A mandatory retirement age while unconstitutional and discriminatory, is sometimes required. This type of policy makes it easier to manage a country's populace, while also benefiting society through the improvement of smaller companies, organizations, and institutions such as the universities in the case of Mckinney v. University of Guelph. My Personal Decision When I first began to research the case Mckinney. v. University of Guelph I assumed it to be a one sided argument in favour of the nine appellants. Such a clear and obvious violation of Section 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms seemed to warrant an instantaneous loss for the respondent universities, however, after further investigation into the case, I began to understand just how the rights of people can be limited both within and beyond a government setting. By the end of my analysis I found myself in complete agreement with the decision of The Supreme Court. I do think that in some cases there are benefits to a mandatory retirement age. Though these benefits are few and far between, they are prevalent when a mandatory retirement age is enforced. Some of these benefits include the betterment of society (through advancing the interests of a company to help support those who are affected by its decisions), and the management of a country's populace. I think a mandatory retirement age best serves countries with immense populations such as China, India, and the United States. As such, a mandatory retirement age should be reserved for countries such as the aforementioned. It should also be enforced by certain institutions who have a bona fide reason for doing so. Referencing back to Mckinney. v. University of Guelph, a valid reason for a mandatory retirement age would be the perpetuation of high academic standards. To conclude, I fully agree with the decision of The Supreme Court. I don’t think universities should be considered “government actors” regardless of the amount of funding they receive from the government, nor do I think they should be required to create policy that is based on the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In the end, this case boils down to the idea that the end justifies the means. By forcing the nine appellants to retire, the four universities are helping to preserve and strengthen their academic standing, and by doing so, they are contributing to the betterment of society.
In the controversial court case, McCulloch v. Maryland, Chief Justice John Marshall’s verdict gave Congress the implied powers to carry out any laws they deemed to be “necessary and proper” to the state of the Union. In this 1819 court case, the state of Maryland tried to sue James McCulloch, a cashier at the Second Bank of the United States, for opening a branch in Baltimore. McCulloch refused to pay the tax and therefore the issue was brought before the courts; the decision would therefore change the way Americans viewed the Constitution to this day.
FACTS: Respondent, Davis, a licensed LPN for over ten years who also lives with hearing loss applied for admissions to Southeastern Community College. The Petitioner, requested Davis see an audiologist before accepting her to the RN program. The audiologist concluded that Davis required lip-read in order to fully understand audible communication. The school subsequently denied Davis entry, assuming her hearing loss would affect her ability to effective care for patients safely.
This essay will analyze the entire case R. v. Morin and evaluate the facts, issues, positions of the Crown and accused. The decisions made during this case and reasons that ultimately lead to the final verdict by the Ontario Court of appeal. This essay will evaluate the decision of whether the delay of the R. v. Morin and the cases that it set precedent for were valid decisions made by the court. This evaluation will describe the arguments made on both sides during these trials. It will discuss how the decision made by the court to decide the trial delay being reasonable were the correct decisions and that section 11(b) of the Charter was not violated. The essay will also discuss the court cases R. v. Godin...
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.
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...
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
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.
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
Martin Lyon Levine, Age Discrimination and the Mandatory Retirement Controversy; The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore and London, 1988.
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.