10.2190/N82D-EYY9-98WG-UFWH N82DEYY998WGUFWH 2 The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and Mandatory Retirement of Academic Employees 293 307 20020509 20020509 20020509 20020509 N82DEYY998WGUFWH.pdf http://baywood.metapress.com/link.asp?target=contribution&id=N82DEYY998WGUFWH 4 Anwar (Andy) N. Khan Athabasca University, Alberta, Canada Under the Canadian Constitution, education is a provincial rather than the federal government's responsibility. In the majority of Canadian universities, colleges, and schools, a mandatory retirement age of sixty-five for men and women is stipulated either by by-laws made under, or collective agreements facilitated by, provincial legislation. A majority of the provinces, in their individual rights or human rights acts/codes, while proscribing discrimination on the ground of, <i>inter alia</i>, age, provides an exception in that between certain ages the provisions against age discrimination do not apply.¹ One of the consequences is that compulsory retirement is not protected under human rights legislation. One of the principal ways the mandatory retirement of academics and others could be challenged was to use the equality provisions of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. However, courts lower than the Supreme Court of Canada could not agree whether compulsory retirement at a certain age was, under the equality section of the Charter, discriminatory or not. It was left to the Supreme Court of Canada to decide that important question. This article examines these recent developments. (UK) 31-32 Eliz. 11, c. 11 (1982). <i>West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette</i>, 319 U.S. 624 (1942). L. Tribe, <i>Constitutional Choices</i>, p. 246, 1985. <i>Hunter v. Southam Inc.</i>, 2 S.C.R. 145 (1985). See also <i>Operation Dismantel Inc. v. The Queen</i>, 1 S.C.R. 441 (1985); <i>Tremblay v. Daigle</i>, 2 S.C.R. 530 (1989); <i>R. v. Big M. Drug Mart Ltd.</i>, 1 S.C.R. 295 (1985); <i>Slaight Communications Inc. v. Davidson</i>, 1 S.C.R. 1038 (1989). <i>R.W.D.S.U. v. Dolphin Delivery Ltd.</i>, 35 D.L.R. (4th) 1. <i>R. v. Edwards Books & Art Ltd.</i>, 1 S.C.R. 713 (1986). <i>R. v. Oakes</i>, 1 S.C.R. 103 (1986). <i>United States of America v. Cotroni</i>, 1 S.C.R. 1469 (1989); <i>Irwin Toy Ltd. v. Quebec (Attorney-General)</i>, 1 S.C.R. 927 (1989). <i>Hogan v. The Queen</i>, 48 D.L.R. (3d) 427 (1978). <i>R. v. Big M. Drug Mart Ltd.</i>, 1 S.C.R. 295 (1985). <i>Ontario Human Rights Commission v. Simpson-Sears Ltd.</i>, 23 D.L.R. (4th) 321 (1985). <i>Andrews v. Law Society of British Columbia et al.</i>, 56 D.L.R. (4th) 1 (1989). <i>R. v. Turpin</i>, 39 C.R.R. 306 (1989). Reference in re Public Service Employees Relations Act, 38 D.L.R. (4th)161 (1987). M. A. Green, Mandatory Retirement Receives Different Treatment from the Courts of Appeal of British Columbia and Ontario, <i>Education Law Journal, 1</i>, p. 104, 1988. A. Khan, Mandatory Retirement Age for University Professors, <i>Journal of Law and Education, 19</i>, p. 135, 1990. <i>McKinney v. University of Guelph</i>, 76 D.L.R. (4th) 545 (1991). <i>Stoffman v. Vancouver General Hospital</i>, 76 D.L.R. (4th) 700 (1991). <i>Harrison v. University of British Columbia</i>, 77 D.L.R. (4th) 55 (1991). <i>Douglas/Kwantlen Faculty Association v. Douglas College</i>, 77 D.L.R. (4th) 94 (1991). <i>McKinney v. University of Guelph</i>, 46 D.L.R. (4th) 193 (1988). E. Chemerinsky, Rethinking State Action, <i>Northwest Law Review, 80</i>, p. 503, 1985. <i>Dickason v. University of Alberta</i>, Alberta Court of Appeal, 81 ALTA L.R. 2d 393 (1991). <i>Ontario English Catholic Teachers Association et al. v. Essex County Roman Catholic Separate School Board</i>, D.L.R. (4th) 115 (1987). R. Coulson, <i>Empovered at Forty</i>, Harper, New York, 1990. A. N. Khan, Canadian Academics and Mandatory Retirement Age, <i>Journal of Law and Education, 21</i>, p. 241, 1992 <i>Lewis v. Burnaby School Board</i>, 91 D.L.R. (4th) 87 (1992).