Douglas K. Gray

Two firefighters were compulsorily retired at age 60 pursuant to a collective agreement.

They filed complaints under The Ontario Human Rights Code alleging age discrimination.

The employer argued that the mandatory retirement age was a bona fide occupational qualification under s. 4(6) of the Code.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the employer failed to adduce sufficient evidence, such as statistical and medical data, to justify the mandatory retirement age.

The Court also held that parties cannot contract out of the Code's provisions through a collective agreement, as it is a public statute enacted for the benefit of the community.

The plaintiff, a highly educated woman of East Indian origin, repeatedly applied for teaching positions at the defendant college but was never interviewed or hired.

She brought a civil action claiming damages for discrimination based on race and national origin, arguing both a common law tort of discrimination and a breach of The Ontario Human Rights Code.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that no common law tort of discrimination exists.

The Court found that the comprehensive administrative and adjudicative scheme established by the Code forecloses any civil action based directly on a breach of the Code or on an invocation of the public policy expressed within it.

The respondent union obtained an arbitration award against Fanshawe College regarding vacation pay and holiday entitlement.

The union then sought to enforce this award against the appellant colleges, who were not parties to the arbitration, arguing that centralized bargaining under The Colleges Collective Bargaining Act, 1975 meant all colleges were bound by the award.

The union initiated contempt proceedings when the appellants refused to comply.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the statutory framework and the collective agreement did not establish centralized arbitration.

The appellant colleges were not notified of or invited to participate in the arbitration, and therefore were not bound by the award.

The appeal was allowed and the contempt proceedings were dismissed.