Bonna Fide Occupational Requirement

[a330pilotcanada]

Part 3

To: Daniel Poulin
Canadian Human Rights Commission
344 Slater Street

8th Floor

Ottawa (Ontario)

K1A 1 E1

Counsel for the Respondent Canadian Human Rights Commission

To: Bruce Laughton

Laughton

& Company

Suite 1090 - 1090 West Georgia Street

Vancouver (British Columbia)
V6E 3V7

Counsel for

Respondent Air Canada Pilots Association

TO

: Canadian Human Rights Tribunal

160 Elgin Street

, 11 th Floor

Ottawa (Ontario)

K1A 1J4

TO

: Attorney General of Canada

Minister of Justice

284 Well

ington Street

Ottawa (Ontario)

K1A OH8

APPLICATION

This is an application for judicial review of a decision dated August 10, 2011of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal (the "Tribunal") in Tribunal file numbers

T1196/0807, T1197/0907, T1246/5807, T1247/5907, T1263/7507, T1279/0908,T1280/1008, T1336/6608, T1337/6708, T138010609, T1390/1609, T1402/2809 and T1418/4409, (the "Decision").

In the Decision (reported at 2011 CHRT 11), the Tribunal dealt with seventy complaints filed by individual pilots formerly employed by Air Canada who alleged that Air Canada and the Air Canada Pilots Association ("ACPA") discriminated against them by requiring that they retire at age 60 pursuant to themandatory retirement rule found in the collective agreement entered into between Air Canada and ACPA. In the Decision, the Tribunal determined that Air Canada had not met the burden of proving that it will suffer undue hardship with the elimination of the age 60 retirement rule and accordingly, concluded that Air Canada could not rely on the defence of bona fide occupational requirement under ss. 15(1 )(a) and 15(2) of the Canadian Human Rights Act ("CHRA').

In the Decision, the Tribunal ruled that Air Canada could not rely on the defence of bona fide occupational requirement despite the existence of international conventions established by the International Civil Aviation Organization ("ICAO'') to which Canada is a party and which impose maximum age limits on pilots who flyinternationally.

The Applicant makes application for:

(a) an order in the nature of certiorari quashing the Decision of the Tribunal;

(b) the costs of this application; and

(c) such further and other relief as counsel may advise and that this

Honorable Court may deem just.

The grounds for the application are:

(a) The Tribunal erred in law and in fact in finding that the Applicant did

not meet its obligation of accommodation prior to November 2006

; and

(b) The Tribunal erred in law and in fact in finding that Air Canada did not meet its burden of proving that it will suffer undue hardship with the

elimination of the age 60 retirement rule

.

(c) Such further and other grounds as counsel may advise and this
Honorable Court permit.