Part 8:
analysis as to effectively allow Air Canada to unilaterally "set" the "normal age of retirement ," contrary to the intentions of Parliament and the purposes Paragraph 15(1 )(c) of the Act, D. having chosen to use a statistically-based method of determining the "normal age of retirement ," failing to narrowly construe the defence or exception in Paragraph 15(1 )(c) of the Act so as to properly apply the law to the facts of these complaints in the context of the purposes of the Act and the intentions of Parliament in enacting the defence or exception under Paragraph 15(1 )(c); E . in misconstruing the proper test required to determine which Canadian airline pilots are "employees working in positions similar" to the Applicants; F in misconstruing the proper test required to determine that age 60 is " the normal age of retirement" for "employees working in positions similar" to the Applicants and/or whether a "normal age of retirement" for those employees even exists; G. in concluding that the Respondent Air Canada had discharged its onus under Paragraph 15(1)(c) of the Actto demonstrate that age 60 is the " normal age of retirement for employees working in positions similar to the position" of the Applicants; H. by dismissing the Applicants' complaints, having erroneously found that Air Canada had discharged its onus under Paragraph 15(1 )(c) of the Act to demonstrate that age 60 is the "normal age of retirement for employees working in positions similar to the position" of the Applicants; I. by dismissing the complaints , having previously directed that constitutional issue be addressed after the conclusion of dealing with the issues in s. 15(1 )(c), s. 15(1 )(a) and s. 15(2) of the Act, and J. such further and other grounds as counsel shall advise and this Honourable Court shall permit. 15. The Applicants plead and rely on: A. Sections 18 and 18.1 of the Federal Courts Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F -7, as amended; B. Rules 300 and 317 of the Federal Court Rules, SOR/98-106; C. Paragraph 15(1 )(c) of the Canadian Human Rights Act, and D. Such further and other statutes as counsel may advise and as this Honourable Court may permit. - 5 - |
Part 9:
17. This application will be supported by the following material: A. a supporting affidavit on behalf of the Applicants served and filed in accordance with Rule 306; B. the relevant documentary exhibits and written submissions that were before the Tribunal ; and C. such further and other evidence as counsel may advise and this Honourable Court may permit. Respectfully submitted this 6th day of September, 2011 Raymond . Hall Barrister & Solicitor 2226 West Taylor Boulevard Winnipeg Counsel for the Applicants - 6 |
On the www.flypast60.com website today:
Lufthansa Pilots Win Age 60 Case at EU Court of Justice BBC Report The decision is reported on EU Court of Justice web site (Case C-447/09: Prigge and Others ). A PDF copy of the decision has been placed on our web site. Thwaites: Air Canada's Notice of Application, Judicial Review Thwaites: Complainants' Notice of Application, Judicial Review Thwaites: 2011 CHRT 11 |
All times are GMT. The time now is 10:49. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.