The appellant challenged a university policy requiring retirement at age 65 as age discrimination contrary to provincial human rights legislation.
The majority held that, although the policy was prima facie discriminatory, the employer established that the practice was reasonable and justifiable under the statutory defence because it furthered tenure, academic renewal, planning, and retirement objectives, and no obvious less impairing alternative would achieve the same results in the university context.
The Court also held that the statutory appeal scheme permitted appellate courts to reassess the factual record without the usual curial deference to the board of inquiry or reviewing judge.
The dissent would have applied a stricter human rights standard, given deference to the board's factual findings, and held the policy unjustified.
