Mandatory retirement of police officers at age 60 violates the Human Rights Code and is not a BFOQ.
The complainant, a police officer, alleged age discrimination after being mandatorily retired at age 60.
The respondents conceded a prima facie violation of the Ontario Human Rights Code but argued the policy was a bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ).
Applying the Supreme Court's Etobicoke test, the Board of Inquiry found the respondents failed to establish both the subjective and objective elements of a BFOQ.
Subjectively, there was insufficient evidence that the policy was adopted with a sincerely held belief in its necessity for adequate job performance.
Objectively, while acknowledging age-related declines in aerobic capacity and increased cardiovascular risk, the Board concluded these factors did not render the age 60 limit reasonably necessary, as the essential duties of police work rarely require sustained aerobic limits and reasonable accommodation was possible.
The mandatory retirement policy was held to violate the Code.
Large v. Stratford (City) (No. 1), 1990 CanLII 12516
