Leave to Appeal Application Filed at Supreme Court of Canada

[YYZSaabGuy]

Or maybe he is just a troll winding everyone up....

Looks like you nailed it, cv990:

NEWACPILOT User Statistics
Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 2:29 pm
Last visited: Sun Oct 07, 2012 2:44 pm
Total posts: 1
[0.00% of all posts / 0.01 posts per day]

[dhc2pilot]

http://read.thestar.com/#!/article/5154 ... 8cf008fe0b


Looks like it is finally over. Let's put it to rest now...please!

[777longhaul]

NO, it is not over.

Just the SCC Charter issue is over.

The CHRT Thwaites JR case to be heard at the end of May.

The CHRT Viven/Kelly JR that was completed over a year ago, with the CHRT award still pending.

[Stu Pidasso]

We have just been informed by the Registry of the Supreme Court of Canada that the decision on our Leave To Appeal application will be released Thursday, March 28th, at 10:00 AM Eastern time.

Well Ray, 5 hours of deafening silence?

[Norwegianwood]

We have just been informed by the Registry of the Supreme Court of Canada that the decision on our Leave To Appeal application will be released Thursday, March 28th, at 10:00 AM Eastern time.

Well Ray, 5 hours of deafening silence?

What is it you want Stu Pidasso

[Stu Pidasso]

Had there been a big win for the over 60 crowd, we would have heard by now?

[777longhaul]

Stu

The SCC will not hear the appeal. (todays ruling from the 3 SCC judges) See above, posting by me for what is now the on going legal case for the 2 JR's at the Federal Court level re the CHRT hearings.

The big win has already happened, ALL pilots at AC now have a choice to retire or not to retire, and they can make that choice when ever their individual situation(s) suits them. NO ONE forces them out. The company, AC has admitted that this change to the age 60 rule at AC, has saved the corporation hundreds of millions of dollars, and the benefit has been paid for, by the FP60 group.

The win is for all pilots at AC.

There are pilots at AC that were very outspoken against the FP60 Coalition, and now, they are flying past 60. Will you be one someday?
Are you an AC pilot?

The SCC leave for appeal, was about the Charter issue, it is not, about BFOR, Normal Age of Retirement issues. Those will be decided by the JR at the Federal Court level.

It would be a good thing to do, for you to look up the previous volumes of information on BFOR, and Normal Age of Retirement etc.
You can get the information from the FP60 website, this forum, other forums, and if you still don't like what you see, go to the government websites and get it from the official website.

[43S/172E]

This is on PPRuNE

Mandatory retirement appeal dismissed:
Good Evening All:
This is copied from the Toronto Star regarding the appeal by Messer's Kelly and Vilven which was dismissed by the Supreme Court of Canada today.
The whole issue of mandatory/contractually agreed retirement has been a highly emotional topic for Air Canada pilots who live in a seniority driven environment.
In the pre December 15 2012 environment one retired at age 60 which allow the next junior pilot to move up the roster for better pay and working conditions. Now past this date a pilot can stay past age 60 as a Captain to age 65 and after that revert to a First Officer if she or he decides.
In review of the early history of this there is a irony that before flying past age 60 became legal as per the change in the law the harshest vocal critics of those who wanted to fly past 60 became the greatest advocates when they themselves approached age 60.

Mandatory retirement: Supreme Court won’t hear appeal of Air Canada pilots forced to retire at 60

SCOC dismisses appeal in case where some Air Canada pilots had to retire at 60. The law has since changed.

By: Vanessa Lu Business reporter, Published on Thu Mar 28 2013
The Supreme Court of Canada has declined to hear an appeal filed on behalf of two Air Canada pilots who were forced to retire at 60.
On Thursday, the Supreme Court dismissed an application filed on behalf of pilots Neil Kelly and George Vilven. The court gave no reasons for its decision.
“It’s been a long slog for both of them,” said lawyer Raymond Hall, who represented Kelly and Vilven. “It’s hard to hide the disappointment. It’s an emotional issue. You just have to soldier on.”
The cases centre on a small group of pilots who wanted to fly beyond the mandatory retirement age of 60 agreed on both the company and union.
Both the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal and the Federal Court of Appeal upheld Air Canada’s right to force pilots to retire at age 60.
The federal government has since changed the Canadian Human Rights Act, barring mandatory retirement in federally regulated jurisdictions such as banking, transportation, and telecommunications.
It went into effect on Dec. 15, 2012, and Air Canada’s pilots can now fly beyond the age of 60. Out of 3,000 pilots, about 100 turn 60 each year. So far, 10 have elected to stay on.
Both Air Canada and the pilots’ union argued that the Supreme Court shouldn’t hear the case because mandatory retirement has since been repealed, although the changes were not retroactive.
“It is ironic that the very people who are largely responsible for effecting the change are the ones unable to benefit from it,” said Hall, who was also an Air Canada pilot.
Craig Blandford, president of the Air Canada Pilots Association, said his group is pleased with the decision, calling it recognition that the policy was not discriminatory.
While Kelly and Vilven have lost their cases, Hall said the fight continues as a separate appeal, involving about 70 Air Canada pilots, due to be heard in May in Federal Court.
Blandford conceded some cases remain unresolved. “For us, we see this as the end of the road,” he said. “We’re hoping these pilots will drop their cases and let us all get on with our lives.
“And take this as a sign and a message they don’t have a case here. They weren’t discriminated against.”

[Raymond Hall]

There are three comments that I have regarding the outcome of the Charter arguments in the Courts.

First, the case yesterday was decided by the Supreme Court of Canada not on the merits of the Charter arguments themselves, but on the issue of the national significance of the question before the Court, given the repeal of the mandatory retirement exemption in the Canadian Human Rights Act. Because of the preliminary nature of a Leave To Appeal decision, the merits of the substantive Charter issue before the Court are not deliberated. In their Replies to our Application for Leave to Appeal, both Air Canada and ACPA argued only that because the exemption was repealed, the issue was no longer one of national significance. The Court can accept fewer than 100 cases per year, so it has to judge which of the thousand Applications for Leave that it receives each year will displace the other cases of national importance. That is the main criterion. So, a decision to deny Leave does not decide the underlying issue.

Second, at the Federal Court of Appeal hearing, neither ACPA nor Air Canada advanced the only argument that won the day (namely, that the 1990 SCC was binding on the Court). In fact, it was the Attorney General of Canada that intervened in the case only weeks before the hearing, arguing that because the repeal of the exemption was then before Parliament, the Court should not strike down the exemption as being unconstitutional. In fact, the Bill mandating the repeal was passed by Parliament during the days of our hearing, in November, 2011, and came into effect when proclaimed on December 15th, 2012, with a one-year delay to coming into effect.

Finally, notwithstanding incorrect statement of the President of ACPA that the SCC decision can be viewed as an indication of the merit of the remaining legal issues before the Federal Court, the decision has no absolutely no impact on the underlying merit of the judicial review arguments that still remain in question before the Federal Court. The legal issues are totally separate. That judicial review is scheduled to be heard in Ottawa in a three day hearing, commencing May 27th.

[43S/172E]

Ray a question, if it is not of national significance would that not suggest that it is the reason the S.C.C. deemed it not worthy of being heard???

I realize that this is a mine field but based on Dec 15 2012 where after this date if one wants they can stay anything before that would be considered as "intellectual phyllo pastry" i.e. "light and fluffy" as far as the S.C.C. would determine.

At what point do you call it a day and say it is over and move on?

[777longhaul]

43S

The issue is over on the SCC Charter approach. That is totally different than the CHRT issue.

You have followed this forum right from the beginning. You know that the CHRT ruling(s) that are being JR'd
are different worlds.

It is not over, until all legal avenues have been explored by all parties. Fairness, logic, reasonableness, went out the window
a long time ago.

The Charter issue, is totally different than BFOR and Normal Age of Retirement.

The law has changed, because it was discriminatory. The CHRT cases are about AC and acpa being able to
qualify for BFOR and the Normal Age of Retirement.
Read Ray's posting above for a proper explaination.

[Bede]

T
First, the case yesterday was decided by the Supreme Court of Canada not on the merits of the Charter arguments themselves, but on the issue of the national significance of the question before the Court, given the repeal of the mandatory retirement exemption in the Canadian Human Rights Act.

I don't think you know that definitively because the SCC doesn't give reasons for leave applications. It could also be that this issue has been litigated and ruled on by the SCC previously. Unless the SCC says otherwise, the Federal Court of Appeal decision and reasons stands.

[Stu Pidasso]

Stu

The SCC will not hear the appeal. (todays ruling from the 3 SCC judges) See above, posting by me for what is now the on going legal case for the 2 JR's at the Federal Court level re the CHRT hearings.

The big win has already happened, ALL pilots at AC now have a choice to retire or not to retire, and they can make that choice when ever their individual situation(s) suits them. NO ONE forces them out. The company, AC has admitted that this change to the age 60 rule at AC, has saved the corporation hundreds of millions of dollars, and the benefit has been paid for, by the FP60 group.

Yes, this has helped the corporation. Now instead of them putting the funds (they should have been putting into the plan) - we -can "fly till we die," and - they - can look after the "core business" - Executive Bonus's.

The win is for all pilots at AC.

That statement is delusional, unlike the tragedy in the US with the theft of their pension. This has been pushed by three special interest groups;

1. The Pilot - who after 30 years and a handful of ex-wifes can't afford to retire.

2. The Pilot - who joined as a "senior citizen" and wanted the rules changed to "suit himself."

3. The Pilot - who has no other life than the Airline.

In which of those three groups do you fall?



There are pilots at AC that were very outspoken against the FP60 Coalition, and now, they are flying past 60. Will you be one someday?
Are you an AC pilot?

No and Yes, as a group we will look back at the "good old days" of normal retirement being 60. Getting out in one piece and in good health, being the main objective.

The SCC leave for appeal, was about the Charter issue, it is not, about BFOR, Normal Age of Retirement issues. Those will be decided by the JR at the Federal Court level.

It would be a good thing to do, for you to look up the previous volumes of information on BFOR, and Normal Age of Retirement etc.
You can get the information from the FP60 website, this forum, other forums, and if you still don't like what you see, go to the government websites and get it from the official website.

I have, but thanks for the advice. The most indignant part of all this is, this comes from a group that has never uttered the words; "my human rights" and now cowers under the blanket screaming "you've violated MY RIGHTS." Making it all somewhat of a insult!

If you think anyone will be thanking you, dream on. This mess was brought to us by a group that enjoyed the best times this industry has ever offered.

[43S/172E]

777longhaul

Thank you for taking the time to answer my question which I might add was addressed to Ray and not you.

I appreciate you bolding and Caps for part of response as I will be going in for cataract surgery in the next year or so.

For Stu not all of the old guys are like that as they remembered how they enjoyed the view from the top because someone stepped aside and let them enjoy the view. When their turn came they raised the glass and said your turn and do us all proud…..

[Stu Pidasso]

43S/172E

You are so right most left with dignity, I will follow in their (your) footsteps. Getting close to the sunset and looking forward to "gett'n out," hopefully still in one piece.

Cheers

[777longhaul]

The 2 JR's will be the deciding factor for all of us.

[777longhaul]

Stu


Yes, this has helped the corporation. Now instead of them putting the funds (they should have been putting into the plan) - we -can "fly till we die," and - they - can look after the "core business" - Executive Bonus's.

That mistake, is acpa's and theirs alone. They dropped the entire game on this issue. The pilots at AC were screwed more by this than by anyother issue in history.

[That statement is delusional, unlike the tragedy in the US with the theft of their pension. This has been pushed by three special interest groups;

The US pensions were owned by the corporations, (Airlines) day and night between Canada and the US. They screwed their pilots and all their pension paying employees.

1. The Pilot - who after 30 years and a handful of ex-wifes can't afford to retire.

2. The Pilot - who joined as a "senior citizen" and wanted the rules changed to "suit himself."

3. The Pilot - who has no other life than the Airline.

In which of those three groups do you fall?

Stu, none of these, sorry, but others do, and they are still employeed, and under 60.

[
[
I have, but thanks for the advice. The most indignant part of all this is, this comes from a group that has never uttered the words; "my human rights" and now cowers under the blanket screaming "you've violated MY RIGHTS." Making it all somewhat of a insult!

I don't know who you are referring to about cowers under the blanket screaming, as Ray, and others have been very forward, and timely, on posting what is and has happened in this long over due issue. Cant say the same for acpa. How much correspondence have any active pilots received?

While I was still employeed, and paying huge acpa dues, (under the bs premise of building a strike fund) they used my union dues to fight against me, and other pilots who were still employed. We all requested a grievance to be filed, as did the other unions, but apca refused, we all ended up in this situation. Did not have to be this way, but that is how it has gone. The JR's will decide the issue.

You should look at the 1970's when the first full court challenge to this rule was brought forth. It is not something new.

If you think anyone will be thanking you, dream on. This mess was brought to us by a group that enjoyed the best times this industry has ever offered.

Stu, I have pilots email and call me to express their thanks for this rule change. I explain that I did nothing, but join the FP60 Coalition. The law was changed because it was plain discriminatory, otherwise, it would not have been changed, by the Federal G

I would never expect anyone to say thanks, as there is no requirement to thank me personally. The work done by Ray, and the legal team, deserve the thanks. The pilots who don't like what has taken place, should voice their displeasure to the Federal Government, they changed the discrimantory rule, not any of us. It benefited over 800,000 individuals in all walks of life. The hand full of unhappy pilots will always be unhappy, just the way it is/was.

Anyhow, the next 2 JR rulings will be the point of happy days, for you and a handful of others, or it will be a further frustration. Who knows, we will have to wait and see who gets the nod.

Meanwhile thanks for the points of view, and the debates.

cheers

[777longhaul]

next

[777longhaul]

43S

Thanks for the post.

Hope your eye exam/surgery/recovery, helps improve your "vision"

cheers

[Raymond Hall]

I don't think you know that definitively because the SCC doesn't give reasons for leave applications. It could also be that this issue has been litigated and ruled on by the SCC previously. Unless the SCC says otherwise, the Federal Court of Appeal decision and reasons stands.

The decision is rendered on the basis of the arguments pleaded. At the application for Leave To Appeal stage, the pleadings address the importance of the case, not the merits of the case. If Leave is granted, those pleadings come later. We pleaded that the issue was of national importance. Both Air Canada and ACPA pleaded that it wasn't. The Court elected to not grant Leave, based on those pleadings.

[Bored]

Let’s cut all the crap about “someone stepped aside and let them enjoy the view.” Very few step aside before 60 and all of us were thrown out whether we liked it or not.
This was always about seniority. When ACPA formed a committee to study (and fight) the age discrimination battle, one of the members of that committee spoke at an LEC meeting in Toronto. His message was that the union could fight in the courts for years, but the Federal Government would someday change the law. He believed his committee’s job was to delay the inevitable as long as possible because there were a lot pilots hired in the early 70’s and wouldn’t it be nice to get them off the list before any changes took place.
He called it exactly right. Those hundreds of seniority numbers were worth far more (to him) than negotiating some win – win for the pilot group. So, management walks off with more money and the pilots have the ability to work past 60.
How much has ACPA spent to simply change which group gets to stay past 60? Everyone gained a few hundred numbers, but the result is the same as if the union had negotiated. And, sadly, most of those that would have stayed a few years would be gone now anyway.

[Raymond Hall]

At what point do you call it a day and say it is over and move on?

Answer: When all of the issues have been fully and fairly argued, and final decisions have been delivered by the Tribunal and the Courts. That's when.

Please don't forget that since 2006 I vigously and continually argued that the fight to prevent the removal of the age 60 cap was futile, and that the union could get something for the tradeoff. In the end, the union spent a huge sum of money fighting a futile effort to prevent the inevitable and got nothing in return when the legislation repealing the mandatory retirement exemption became law.

[Rockie]

This mess was brought to us by a group that enjoyed the best times this industry has ever offered.

This has been an unnecessary mess that's for sure, but you couldn't be more wrong about why it's a mess or who made it that way.

[777longhaul]

end.

[777longhaul]

Thwaites Federal Court JR, starting on May 27 2013.