''Ontario (Human Rights Commission) v Etobicoke (Borough of)'',
982
Year 982 ( CMLXXXII) was a common year starting on Sunday (link will display the full calendar) of the Julian calendar.
Events
By place Europe
* Summer – Emperor Otto II (the Red) assembles an imperial expeditionary force at Tar ...
1 S.C.R. 202 is a leading
Supreme Court of Canada
The Supreme Court of Canada (SCC; french: Cour suprême du Canada, CSC) is the Supreme court, highest court in the Court system of Canada, judicial system of Canada. It comprises List of Justices of the Supreme Court of Canada, nine justices, wh ...
decision on
age discrimination
Ageism, also spelled agism, is discrimination against individuals or groups on the basis of their age. The term was coined in 1969 by Robert Neil Butler to describe discrimination against seniors, and patterned on sexism and racism. Butler def ...
. Several firemen challenged a mandatory retirement policy under the ''Ontario Human Rights Code''. The Court found that the employer did not sufficiently justify the policy as a
''bona fide'' occupational requirement.
Background
Harold Hall and Vincent Gray were firemen in the borough of
Etobicoke
Etobicoke (, ) is an administrative district of, and one of six municipalities amalgamated into, the city of Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Comprising the city's west-end, Etobicoke was first settled by Europeans in the 1790s, and the municipalit ...
, Ontario. As part of the collective agreement between the borough and the union, all firefighters were required to retire at the age of 60. When Hall and Grey were forced to retire they brought a complaint for age discrimination under section 4(1) of the ''Ontario Human Rights Code'' which prohibited discrimination in recruitment or dismissal based on age among other grounds.
The respondents defended their actions by arguing that the rule was a ''bona fide'' occupational requirement (BFOR). Namely, that the rule was required to maintain an acceptable standard for firefighting.
In the Ontario Divisional Court, it was held that the policy was a BFOR and so did not violate section 4(1) of the Code.
Reasons of the court
Justice McIntyre, writing for the unanimous Court, overturned the lower court decision and found that the policy was not justified. He noted that an employee or union cannot waive their rights under the Code through collective agreements. The standard to meet to establish a BFOR must be an objective one that is supported by concrete evidence. McIntyre found that the evidence presented was weak and did not sufficiently justify the requirement.
See also
*
List of Supreme Court of Canada cases
The Supreme Court of Canada is the court of last resort and final appeal in Canada. Cases that are successfully appealed to the Court are generally of national importance. Once a case is decided the Court will publish written reasons for the deci ...
External links
* {{lexum-scc2, 1982, 1, 202, 15
case summary
Canadian civil rights case law
Supreme Court of Canada cases
Labour relations in Canada
1982 in Canadian case law
Ageism case law
Etobicoke
History of Toronto