FP60 update Federal Court of Appeals

[Rockie]

There is no way that any individual could honestly say that at 60, they are as mentally, and physically capable as they were at 30. Not one.

I agree with you as far as physicality goes, but the mental capacity shown by our pilots has been embarrassingly wanting in many more issues than just this one regardless of their age. Especially regarding this issue. Wanton stupidity is the only phrase appropriate in my mind...

[Raymond Hall]

There is no way that any individual could honestly say that at 60, they are as mentally, and physically capable as they were at 30. Not one. DP.

I agree. My mental capacity, fortunately, is not at age 30. I am very happy now that I am not making the same stupid mistakes that I made then. When I think back I really have to wonder, Was that me? God help me.

[Raymond Hall]

As for "Damages" start throwing a dart at a board - anything is possible. There are plenty who believe the end game for many of the FP60 crowd was a money grab. We've successfully beat that horse to death.

Yes and no.

I can't speak with regard to the motivation of those whom I represent. When I left, five years ago now, I attempted to keep my Jeps up to date, getting copies of the amendments in the expectation that I would be back before long. It was never about the coin.

There was a large number of my contemporaries who couldn't wait to retire. The only reason that they didn't retire early was the huge adverse impact on their pension earnings that defined their income for the rest of their lives, should they take early retirement. We could easily have found a trade-off to allow those individuals to leave, allowing those of us who loved our jobs to stay, with zero impact on the junior pilots. But nobody seemed interested in exploring those options, notwithstanding the changing factual situation with respect to the normal age of retirement in the industry.

I truly missed doing what I did for over 40 years, and I couldn't understand why my leaving was someone else's choice, not my own. I still miss my job, and if I was permitted to, I would be back in the Vista building tomorrow morning doing the retraining. I honestly feel that I am even more qualified now to go at that job, than I was when I left. Age has its benefits, and fortunately for me, I have had no health issues--touch wood.

I even refused to accept the retirement plaque, with the aircraft, in the expectation that I might still fly again.

The fact remains that the legal fallout is still some time off. I truly hope that the consequences of this litigation doesn't disturb the great future that the existing members of the Association still have. But the fact is that the litigation is not going away. It is a chapter that must be closed. It is not a money grab for the majority. It is a reconciliation for the life that should have been, absent discrimination.

[TheStig]

The fact remains that the legal fallout is still some time off. I truly hope that the consequences of this litigation doesn't disturb the great future that the existing members of the Association still have. But the fact is that the litigation is not going away. It is a chapter that must be closed. It is not a money grab for the majority. It is a reconciliation for the life that should have been, absent discrimination.

In my experience Ray (as a non-lawyer) most of these rulings generally follow some practicality. In this case it (could) cause massive costs to the Airline, as each retired Pilot slid back onto the Seniority list. It's not the least bit emotional for me, I just don't believe it will happen.

I'm with Stu (also as a non-lawyer) the big question is harm. Absent retirement at 60, Raymond, your career earnings and date of hire would have been tremendously delayed, and looking back at how wages have failed to keep up with inflation you'd have been forced to work well into your 70's to break even. Even the Arbitrator that overturned the previously ruling noted that Mandatory retirement at 60 was done for the benefit of the group as a whole, not to discriminate against any individual. The only pilot actually harmed by mandatory retirement would have only been the first one, everyone else has benefitted from those who retired before them.

I'm not interested in debating skills and competency, the two individuals who ended up on 777 courses a couple of years back proved results can vary greatly. I've had the pleasure and displeasure of flying with a number of seniors discount eligible pilots in the last 1.5 years who have reinforced that notion.

I've read about how the sky is falling for almost a decade now, with the threats of imminent returns and massive financial settlements only to see the FP60 group achieve nothing, you'll have to excuse those of us who don't believe this time is any different. For all the talk of missed opportunities to create gains for the pilot group, my recollection of the events was that the FP60 group maintained an all or nothing stance at every single chance to deal with this situation.

I'm not going to be back to defend my opinion against the numerous posts no doubt to follow. Quite frankly we're never going to change each others opinion and I've said my piece.

[Raymond Hall]

I'm with Stu (also as a non-lawyer) the big question is harm. Absent retirement at 60, Raymond, your career earnings and date of hire would have been tremendously delayed, and looking back at how wages have failed to keep up with inflation you'd have been forced to work well into your 70's to break even.

Not so. The evidence is that the impact on one's career progression would be about nine months delay. No big deal.

The two individuals who ended up on 777 courses a couple of years back proved results can vary greatly.

Correct, especially when one of them medicals out with a problem that could affect anyone, including twenty-year olds.

I've read about how the sky is falling for almost a decade now, with the threats of imminent returns and massive financial settlements only to see the FP60 group achieve nothing…

One of my favourite quotes is that of the Chinese leader, Zhou Enlai, who, when asked his opinion of the main lessons of the French Revolution, replied, “It’s too early to tell…”

Another of my favourite quotes is that of C. Northcote Parkinson: “Delay is the deadliest form of denial.”

I don’t believe that Chicken Little got it right. The sky is not falling. But I do believe that the chickens have yet to come home to roost.

[Vsplat]

Not so. The evidence is that the impact on one's career progression would be about nine months delay. No big deal.

Just a question on your math. Given how the flow to senior positions at Air Canada has just about stopped completely and that cessation has been assigned to the change in retirement numbers, even with bids looking ahead another 12 months, how does that equate to a nine month delay? The common feedback from the inside is more like 3 to 5 years, with the greatest impact likely in the first 5 years post change.

What change are you associating with a nine month impact?

Vs

[Fanblade]

Not so. The evidence is that the impact on one's career progression would be about nine months delay. No big deal.

Just a question on your math. Given how the flow to senior positions at Air Canada has just about stopped completely and that cessation has been assigned to the change in retirement numbers, even with bids looking ahead another 12 months, how does that equate to a nine month delay? The common feedback from the inside is more like 3 to 5 years, with the greatest impact likely in the first 5 years post change.

What change are you associating with a nine month impact?

Vs

Vs,

I found this comment highly questionable in hindsight as well.

There was a large number of my contemporaries who couldn't wait to retire. The only reason that they didn't retire early was the huge adverse impact on their pension earnings that defined their income for the rest of their lives, should they take early retirement

Tried to find it but gave up. Somewhere in the mountain of posts it reveals this 9 month delay estimate was part of an expert witness testimony. Raymond?

Anyway Vs I would agree with you the expert's crystal ball looks a little foggy. Based on what has happened so far and my very questionable math. The new normal age of retirement will be a maximum of 64 and a minimum of 62.5. 64 is based on everyone not retiring at 60 goes to 65. Probably not likely. 62.5 is based on normal retirement numbers starting on the next bid. Not likely either.

Best guess so far. 63.x. How close to 64 it gets will depend on how fast retirements escalate in the next 12 months. If they don't? It will be darn close to 64.

The 9 month claim looks to be debunked. On the other hand you never know what quasi- clever logic may be employed to re-bunk the debunked.

My eyes are still rolling after realizing the logic used to justify the statement that no one has been harmed by the change in retirement age.

[Raymond Hall]

Just a question on your math. Given how the flow to senior positions at Air Canada has just about stopped completely and that cessation has been assigned to the change in retirement numbers, even with bids looking ahead another 12 months, how does that equate to a nine month delay? The common feedback from the inside is more like 3 to 5 years, with the greatest impact likely in the first 5 years post change. What change are you associating with a nine month impact?

Until the contract was changed, effective December 15, 2012, there was no way to accurately predict how the dust would settle. Nine months is the number that came from expert testimony at the Tribunal hearings, and it was based on a number of inputs, including those from other sectors where mandatory retirement was abolished.

Are there any hard numbers available yet on the 19 months, post-abolishment? Numbers, not guesses.

[Rockie]

The common feedback from the inside is more like 3 to 5 years, with the greatest impact likely in the first 5 years post change.

The nine months was based on historical precedences and is likely skewed in our case by the 1 year notice Air Canada imposed on retirements. That eliminates everybody who says "I'm done" and retires at the end of the month because now everybody has to plan very far ahead. I also know people who have to work a couple of years longer unwillingly to get the same pension they would have gotten at 60 thanks to the new conditions that have nothing to do with the FP60 group.

After five years there will be no impact at all since everybody has to go at 65 and the list will progress at the same rate it did before this change. Maybe even faster since a lot more people will be able to retire before the new "mandatory" age with a full pension than before.

[Fanblade]

Are there any hard numbers available yet on the 19 months, post-abolishment? Numbers, not guesses.

What I posted above is not a guess. Its factual based on CMSC reviews. The average age will be between 62.5 and 64.

Trying to narrow it down further after only 19 months would be a guess.

[Lt. Daniel Kaffee]

I can't speak with regard to the motivation of those whom I represent

It is not a money grab for the majority.

Which is it? If you don't know their motivation then you can't make your last statement!

BTW, a third party with zero interest in this issue told me that a spontaneous utterance by one of your clients at their respective cottages that the pilot told him in no uncertain terms that he had no interest in returning to work, he was only hoping for a cash payout

PS... I love the statements about how great CUPE and the other unions have been about the forced retirement issue. That's a shallow analysis of the issue. The reason that CUPE and other unions had little resistance to ending age related retirement is because they all have job structures that resemble a pilot group that had status pay and job status that doesn't doesn't depend upon seniority anywhere near the same as a formula pay based pilot group. Not even close. If the 1:50 change had occurred just prior to the end of age based retirement I bet young CUPE members would be up in arms.

[Doug Moore]

After reading the comments above of that “dude” dukepoint, one can’t help but wonder from what knowledge base, wisdom or experience level he so emphatically postulates that “FP60 is a cash grab, pure and simple”. Well no, dude, for me it’s not, and never has been. And what do you know about flying past 60 anyway? Are you 60+ and know of what you speak or are you a 20-30-40 something who believes that he has all the answers and just likes to spout off about it?

This dude has the brass to ask if anyone has ever heard the saying “you can’t teach an old dog new tricks,” implying, no, coming right out and saying that we all have a “best before date”. And of course he has the answer: ask any doctor! Hey dude: you can’t teach an old dog a new trick because he has already seen and done them all. Of course for the young pups, every trick is a new trick and it is often the more cheeky and overconfident ones that go running to the old dog thinking that they’ll show him a “new” trick. The analogy to flying airplanes, dude, is that the old dog, were you to notice and possibly grant the respect he has earned, is wearing a sweaty T-shirt that says something along the lines of “been there, done that, kiddo”.

So it’s “tough enough dealing with the geriatric shopping club”, is it? No interest in being a “flying babysitter” is there? Can’t imagine doing a V1 cut on a hot day in Hong Kong with a rusty “returning” 64 year-old? You sound like you’ve made up your mind already - have you? Oh wait. You’ve insulted pretty well all of your senior peers but you have made an exception for sim instructors. Be honest now, this generosity has been extended only because you know you’d lose that leg wrestle with a 68 year-old. That would be embarrassing now, wouldn’t it.

Left seat, right seat or center seat: if a pilot is sitting there then they are either qualified or in training. If you have a problem with babysitting, take it up with your Chief Pilot. If you’re worried about a V1 cut take it up with your Chief Pilot or better still, get out of the seat as it would appear that your attitude towards your fellow pilot will be more of a hindrance than a help in dealing with any problem that might arise in the cockpit.

I understand the unhappiness with FP60. I get the unhappiness with the slowdown in retirements and attendant slowdown in advancement. You are not the only one who has suffered at the hand of unpredictable change. Some of us who have gone before you have gone through events that ground a career to a halt, and not just for a few years. I’m not suggesting that because others before you have suffered that it is now your turn to suffer, I’m simply saying that life happens. Change happens, and it can happen in spite of you or to spite you. How you embrace it is your choice. Lashing out is always an option, albeit a vain and unproductive one.

What I don’t get is the vitriol, the bitterness and the contempt that still seems to prevail to this day. It doesn’t have to be this way today and it didn’t have to be this way 10 years ago, but here we are. You are your union and your union chose to fight change. And now it would appear that there is a real possibility that this is going to cost your union (that’s you) some serious coin. You don’t have to like it, but it’s time some of you put on your Big Boy pants, took a good look in the mirror and moved on.

I don’t know who you are dukepoint but my name is posted for all to see. When I was still working I spoke out often on this forum for the right to continue flying past 60, such as my comments here: http://www.avcanada.ca/forums2/viewtopi ... 56#p667956 That said, while I’ve now been retired 6+ years; I’m not now and never have been a member of the FP60 group. But when you bad-mouth them, you bad-mouth me. We’re all pilots and we should be able to show some respect for each other. One day, you too will be an old fart.

By the way, while there are those that do, I for one don’t enjoy a 6-figure pension, and there are many more like me, so how about you put that paintbrush away?

For Lt. Kaffee (I get the feeling that FP60 is your Col Jessep), it would not surprise me in the least that there might be those in the FP60 group who hope for a cash payout. I would ask: “So what?” Kaffee: “I want the truth!” Jessep: “You can’t handle the truth!”

Son, we live in a world that changes. You weep for the loss of forced retirement at age 60 and you curse the FP60 group. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what FP60 knows. …. Sorry, couldn’t resist, I loved Jack Nicholson in his role as Col. Jessep. But back to reality, the regrettable fact is that there are extremists on both sides that have so poisoned the well that they want to “stick it” to the other side. ACPA, with the power granted to it by some of its members (such as yourself and dukepoint I suspect), did its best – and with some success - to “stick it” to the hundreds of members (of which I was one) who were approaching forced retirement over the last 10 years. That damage is done and today, one is left with a very bitter taste in one’s mouth after having suffered not only the failure of your own union to represent you, but for them to also use your own dues to “stick it” to you. Any desire for a cash payout today by individual FP60 members should come as no surprise, least of all to someone such as you.

Had more mature minds been in control of this issue at ACPA from the get-go, I believe that most of the damage and animosity that has flowed from this mess could have been avoided. What's done is done and it’s long past time to move on and behave as a united group with a common front against the employer.

[MackTheKnife]

How anyone can actually read Doug's former post,

http://www.avcanada.ca/forums2/viewtopi ... 56#p667956

and still not fathom what this struggle is all about and has always been about, and how it could / should have been handled, then there's simply no reason for further discussion.


Mr Kaffee; The unions stalling tactics have achieved their desired end result to the point where almost everyone is either over or approaching 65.

From this standpoint ACPA has won, you should be grateful your strategy was successful. It's too bad nobody in ACPA circa 2006 thought past this point of no return.

What did you honestly expect your friends friend, or any of us to say now that the only justice left is compensation? Is it your expectation that 200 litigants give every one a group hug and a high 5 for a job well done and then roll over and become sacrificial lambs on the ACPA alter after being denied justice for 10 years?

MTK

[TCAS II]

It's sad to see such bitterness between pilots as a group. I suppose Unions aren't unions.

[Rockie]

It's sad to see such bitterness between pilots as a group. I suppose Unions aren't unions.

Not this one at any rate...not by a long shot.

[Vsplat]

Are there any hard numbers available yet on the 19 months, post-abolishment? Numbers, not guesses.

Now that is probably the crux of the matter. A lot has been offered as fact, or 'evidence', when in fact it was opinion, forecasts based on assumptions. Some forecasts are coming more true than others.

In my view, it is the obligation of those who refer to evidence to back their own statements with hard numbers, with the normal order of things being, get the data, vet the data, then post it. Posting something as evidence and then challenging someone to provide hard numbers is really an odd strategy.

If you want to see some hard numbers, then maybe it is time to give a voice to the junior pilots, those most affected and caught in the pay pool. What was advertised as a transitional process has become a chronic financial backslide for these individuals and their families. I bet this group would love to provide testimony at any committee hearing arguments on the topic.

After five years there will be no impact at all since everybody has to go at 65 and the list will progress at the same rate it did before this change. Maybe even faster since a lot more people will be able to retire before the new "mandatory" age with a full pension than before.

Rockie, so have we gone from 9 months impact to 5 years? Quite a shift.

Two other aspects of your post need addressing.

It's simply incorrect to say there will be no impact after 5 years. To those junior pilots whose pay has been largely stagnated since this change, the impact is cumulative at a rate of roughly $50K per year, lifetime earnings. As the pay scale they are caught in is often not enough to stay ahead on family debt, there will be, for many, the impact of that accumulated debt. We can add to that the impact of prolonged period living a very junior lifestyle, with some caught on reserve and, courtesy of the new FOS, unable to bid to a better position. Some of these individuals have already entered extremis, some have left the airline. So it would be grossly incorrect to say there will be no longer term impact on these individuals' careers and, indeed, the lives of their immediate family members.

Depending on the age of joining, some of the aforementioned pilots will have their pension based on a time when their earnings were depressed. That's a permanent impact that will follow these people into retirement.

As for individuals being able to leave faster, you really need to get your hands on the new contract. Because of the change in retirement to 65, the pension discount for those leaving before 65, if they don't happen to have 25 years in, is crippling. To the 'hard numbers' case, anyone who joined this airline after age 35 will be affected. I have seen several impact statements. One comes from a fellow whose planned pension at 60 would have been over 65K, now $39K.

Also on the pension front, we have an advisory from the Association that pilots who elect to retire post 60 but before reaching 25YOS should carefully consider the financial detriment of an upgrade close to retirement. The pension discount is based on last salary. So a pilot who upgrades from, say, A320 Capt to B767 Capt at age 60, then retires at age 61 may end up with a LOWER pension than if they had stayed put on the 320. Again, permanent impact due to delayed upgrade.

I am not here to argue whether one or other group is as entitled as they say they are to a point of view, either for, or against, this change. But much of the acrimony is fuelled by the characterisation of opinion as fact, especially when more accurate information is submerged by rhetoric.

Any stable future will require a rational discussion, absent the blame and spin. Who is experiencing what kinds of hardship, and why? It might be possible to find the same irritant, and mitigation, on both sides of the page, I don't know. I do know that tossing opinions back and forth hasn't worked so far....

All IMHO. Flame away.

Vs

[rudder]

Any stable future will require a rational discussion, absent the blame and spin. Who is experiencing what kinds of hardship, and why? It might be possible to find the same irritant, and mitigation, on both sides of the page, I don't know. I do know that tossing opinions back and forth hasn't worked so far....

All IMHO. Flame away.

Vs

The ACPA Negotiations Audit and Review Report provides a fairy accurate description of the strategic and labour relations failures of the last decade culminating recently in the debacle of FOS and the new world that the AC pilots live in.

As I understand it, AC has approached ACPA with growth opportunities. Problem is that how the corporation defines growth (revenue/ASM's/total pilots) may or may not translate in to growth in pilot terms (expanded career earnings). It is up to the pilot representatives, using qualified internal and external resources, to attempt to make this determination and therefore decide whether to pursue the offer to engage early or not.

What it does represent - for the first time in many years - is the opportunity for the majority of the AC pilots to set the agenda.

If the underlying problems are as you have described, then 2014 looks like an early opportunity to try to remedy the deficiencies that resulted from the combination of FOS and Age 65. My suggestion would be wealth redistribution and assessing enhanced career earnings potential within the revised commercial plan as measured against a 'mainstream' (read typical) AC pilot.

I hope that is what is going on right now. There is no point in considering the possibility of a 3500-4000 pilot seniority list where it is not the typical AC pilot that benefits in career earnings.

[Morry Bund]

If you want to see some hard numbers, then maybe it is time to give a voice to the junior pilots, those most affected and caught in the pay pool. What was advertised as a transitional process has become a chronic financial backslide for these individuals and their families. I bet this group would love to provide testimony at any committee hearing arguments on the topic.

Testimony? About what? About nobody telling us that the government was going to abolish mandatory retirement? Not true. Post after post for years told us this was coming.

About our not being able to tell our union executives to get real and face up to the inevitable changes? Our problem.

About them selling us a bill of goods that we now have to pay for? Get real. Our problem, again. Check your sources. Did you or I challenge them on the information (or lack thereof) that we were getting? Really. What did we do, when we could have done something?

Yes, sh*t happens. Maybe it isn't fair that there is a consequence to the fact that the government outlawed mandatory retirement and to the fact that our union contract was not fixed well in advance of when it happened. Wasn't that part of the plan? You (and I) may have been the victims, all along. But victims of what? Of our own ignorance or unwillingness to face reality? Of our own unwillingness to challenge the assumption that we could delay this forever and that we could avoid the inevitable financial consequences of our decisions by simply assuming that we would never be held accountable for our choices, our misconceptions and our unwillingness to change?

Isn't the failure of the union to address this problem now foisted upon the junior pilots that have to face the short-term stagnation while those who represented us were selling us a bill of goods about being able to make water flow uphill are sitting in the top seats pulling in the big bucks? Where are those who steered this course? None of them are junior. None of them have to face the immediate impact of the stagnation, whatever it may be, in the short term. How many of those who opposed the age 60 retirement are electing to stay working after they reach age 60? Almost all, from what I hear.

I, for one, will take my lumps, on behalf of the choices that my group made. That includes paying whatever price that must be paid for this colossal mistake.

Then, I will move on. Because I love my job. That is what is important.

[Vsplat]

I think your rant might be misplaced.

I am responding to statements on this thread that were purported to be evidence, or fact if you will. Statements that said the impact would be 9 months, then 5 years to nil impact.

As for testimony, from this thread my understanding of the process is that it is still ongoing. Presumably in front of a judge or quasi-judicial body as an intermediary. Impact statements have been part of things all along, as confirmed just a few posts above mine. If there are to be further appeals, then what sort of evidence will accompany those appeals? Will there be current data based on the affected group post change? Seems like a logical question to ask, but as I said, that's just my opinion.

So, while I feel your frustration, even share it to an extent, the actions of the respondents are not in the scope of my questions. I'm just trying to get clarity on a couple of assertions made here.

-Vs

[Raymond Hall]

Here is where the legal process stands at the moment.

The Federal Court issued its decision in Adamson et al v. Air Canada et al. in January (we formerly used to refer to this group as the "Thwaites" group). 69 pilots. The remaining over 150 pilots with complaints re their mandatory retirement have had their complaints before the Commission, the Tribunal or the Court put on hold pending the outcome of the Adamson litigation.

There were three components to the Adamson decision: 1. the normal age of retirement question; 2. Air Canada's BFOR defence; 3. ACPA's BFOR defence. The Court overturned the Tribunal's decision on normal age of retirement (the Tribunal decision was favourable to Air Canada), saying that the Tribunal erred by eliminating all of the pilots working for Air Canada's major competitors from the "competitor group" used to define what is "normal."

The Court disallowed Air Canada's BFOR argument (it was based on ICAO over-under restrictions). It allowed ACPA's BFOR argument (alleged economic harm to junior members of the union, if the mandatory retirement provision were eliminated).

All three components of the decision are now before the Federal Court of Appeal ("FCA"). The Adamson group appealed the ACPA BFOR portion of the decision, Air Canada and ACPA both appealed the normal age of retirement portion of the decision, and Air Canada appealed its BFOR portion of the decision.

The submissions of the parties to the FCA have not yet been completed. The Court sets the timetable. The final replies to the initial submissions are due early next month (August). Once they are complete, a hearing date will be requested. The hearing date could be set anytime afterwards, but it is unlikely to be set before October. It could be as late as early next year, depending on the availability of the Court of Appeal judges (three are required to attend), and the availability of all the legal counsel for the various parties, including the CHRC. It is also dependent on how many days are required get through all the legal arguments--the Court will likely have to find a period of three successive days open. FCA decisions are usually rendered anytime from four to 12 weeks after the hearing.

The Federal Court of Appeal hears legal argument only. It does not hear new evidence. Its decision will likely be the last Court decision on the case for a while, because the only higher Court is the Supreme Court of Canada and it has already denied leave to appeal on this case as a result of the repeal of mandatory retirement legislation making the case no longer of national importance--ostensibly only 200 or so pilot litigants will have their cases affected by this decision, and the SCC can hear only about 75 to 100 cases per year, including all of the significant criminal cases. This one likely wouldn't meet the threshold requirement, regardless of who seeks leave to appeal.

If the FCA decision is favourable to the Adamson group, the case will then go back to the Tribunal for a final decision on the liability portion. There is still a possibility at that point that the Tribunal could say that the complaints were not sustained, but if all of the pilots working for WestJet and the other carriers that were previously excluded from the comparator group are now included, the odds of the decision being adverse to the Adamson group is remote, in my view.

If the complaints are sustained by the Tribunal, the next step is a Tribunal hearing for remedy. Remedy includes (potential) reinstatement for those still under 65, as well as damages. If the FCA overturns ACPA's BFOR defence (a necessity to get the case back to the Tribunal) the Tribunal remedy hearing, in my view, will focus only on the damages payable to the complainants, not on the alleged adverse economic impact on the junior union members. That issue stands or falls at the FCA, and the only way the case could get back to the Tribunal is if the FCA rejects the argument.

There is no provision for "victim impact statements" of the kind used in criminal trials. The potential adverse economic impact on those who have been found to have violated the discrimination law is not something the Tribunal would normally consider in meting out the damage awards to each successive successful individual complainant. There is a long line of legal precedent saying that the principle object of human rights law is remedial--its purpose, in addition to preventing and prohibiting discrimination is to put the person back in the position that he or she would have been, absent the contravening discrimination.

If the FCA decision is favourable to the Adamson group, the remaining cases before the Commission, the Tribunal and the Court will then resume. There is a very high likelihood that the remaining cases would be short-circuited, procedurally, given the legal precedent set by this case. Re-arguing the same points of law is generally not allowed.