Leave to Appeal Application Filed at Supreme Court of Canada

[MackTheKnife]

Stig,

I was thinking the exact same thing.

In my opinion the net result of a changing retirement age (let's face it pilots are late to the game on this) is having a very negative impact on 20 something employment. Look no further than the many articles of concern about a lack of employment opportunities for graduating students. Student concern over debt and no jobs. Teachers in Ontario with up to 10 years of subbing still without full time employment for example.

I am in no way saying 65 year olds owe those students to retire. That has been declared a human rights issue. As it should.

What I am saying is that the callus nature in which those same people reject the legitimate concerns of the young makes me shake my head. None of us live in a vacuum. All change comes with collateral damage. It is simply life. Do you see any attempt at mitigation around us? Any at all? We are just told to sit down and shut up. Wait your turn. No wonder so many kids are still at home in their thirties. They are doing what they have been handed. Waiting their turn to start a life. When will that be?

I would like respect for my concerns if you wish me to respect you. Your generation is the wealthiest ever. And the most in debt. You can't afford to retire. In a perfect world your choices would not impact me. That is simply not how things work.

I am of course speaking in generalities.

Some further reading on the subject.


http://theairlinewebsite.com/index.php/ ... sztor-wsj/


Also:

http://theairlinewebsite.com/index.php/ ... be-pilots/

[Fanblade]

Mack,

I was referring to society in general. The impact on the young is harsh.

As for aviation? How many times have you heard that before.

The assumptions made to come up with these predictions are based on aircraft orders. Even aircraft manufacturers have expressed concern whether the amount ordered can be absorbed by the market place.

Considering the economies of the EU, the US, the slow down in China and an eventual deleveraging here at home? ( debt to income ratio)

I'm thinking likely no. The jobs that are created, like everywhere else in this economy, will be at pennies on the dollar.

[duranium]

Or maybe they are a new AC pilot…My first post here wasn't well received by Raymond's supporters either. I've noticed most of the posters who have traditionally posted on this topic are no where in sight.

This short interlude is to give you a heads up. I am, one of aforementionned posters, not in sight because there is nothing on the subject, at the moment, to discourse about but you can rest assured that when the time comes, I shall be front and center.

Some of the info posted above is incorrect. Pilots are allowed to stay in the left seat until 65, then either have to bid Wide-body FO or Narrow-body Captain.

Are pilots still hoping to rejoin aware of the changes that would be made to their pensions if they returned to work? It would be really unfortunate to return to work for a few years only to leave with a smaller pension than you have right now.

[777longhaul]

JR scheduled for the end of May 2013.

[Raymond Hall]

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.

[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