Pacific Pilotage Authority v. Arnison (1980), 34 N.R. 22 (FCA)
MLB headnote and full text
Pacific Pilotage Authority v. Arnison and Canadian Human Rights Commission
(A-536-80)
Indexed As: Pacific Pilotage Authority v. Arnison and Canadian Human Rights Commission
Federal Court of Appeal
Pratte, Le Dain, JJ., and Hyde, D.J.
October 31, 1980.
Summary:
This headnote contains no summary.
Civil Rights – Topic 994
Discrimination – Employment – Age – General – The Pacific Pilotage Authority removed a man from the eligibility list for employment of pilots, when he reached age 50 – The Authority relied on s. 4(1)(a) of the General Pilotage Regulations, which provided that applicants for a pilotage licence could not be more than 50 years of age – The Pilotage Act, S.C. 1970-71, c. 52, s. 42(a), authorized regulations prescribing “minimum qualifications” – Section 14(b) of the Canadian Human Rights Act provided that it was not a discriminatory practice if employment of an individual was refused because he reached the maximum age applicable – The Canadian Human Rights Commission allowed the man’s complaint that he was discriminated against because of his age, ruling that under s. 42 (a) a permissible minimum qualification for a job could not be a maximum age – The Federal Court of Appeal allowed the Authority’s appeal and held that the removal of the man from the eligibility list was not a discriminatory practice, because it amounted to a refusal to employ for a reason validly imposed by the General Pilotage Regulations.
Statutes Noticed:
Canadian Human Rights Act, S.C. 1976-77, c. 33, sect. 3 [para. 3]; sect. 7, sect. 10 [para. 2]; sect. 14(b) [para. 5].
General Pilotage Regulations, C.R.C., c. 1263, sect. 4(1)(a) [para. 4].
Pilotage Act, S.C. 1970-71, c. 52, sect. 14(1)(f) [para. 8]; sect. 14(1)(g) [para. 10]; sect. 42(a) [para. 7].
Counsel:
William O’M Forges, for applicant;
Allan E. Black, for respondent Kenneth Arnison;
Russell G. Juriansz, for respondent Canadian Human Rights Commission.
This case was heard on October 24, 1980, at Montreal, P.Q., before PRATTE, LE DAIN, JJ., and HYDE, D.J., of the Federal Court of Appeal.
On October 31, 1980, LE DAIN, J., delivered the following judgment for the Court of Appeal:
