The respondent, a police officer, was forced to retire at age 60 pursuant to a mandatory retirement policy in the collective agreement.
He filed a human rights complaint alleging age discrimination.
The Board of Inquiry found the policy was not a bona fide occupational requirement (BFOR) because the employer lacked a sincerely held belief in its necessity at the time of adoption, and because individual accommodation was possible.
The Divisional Court and Court of Appeal upheld this decision.
The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, holding that the subjective element of the BFOR test can be satisfied where a policy is adopted in good faith through collective bargaining without ulterior motives.
The Court also held that the objective element does not require individual accommodation where a general rule is reasonably necessary and individual testing is impractical.
The mandatory retirement policy was justified as a BFOR.
