Stare Decisis
In Air Canada Pilots Association v. Kelly, 2012 FCA 209, the Federal Court of Appeal reaffirmed the binding nature of Supreme Court precedent under the doctrine of stare decisis.
The case involved two Air Canada pilots who were required to retire at age 60 under section 15(1)(c) of the Canadian Human Rights Act. They argued that the provision violated the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Both the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal and the Federal Court had found the provision unconstitutional, distinguishing it from the Supreme Court’s earlier ruling in McKinney v. University of Guelph (1990).
Justice Pelletier, writing for the Federal Court of Appeal, held that McKinney was binding authority. He emphasized that neither tribunals nor lower courts may disregard Supreme Court precedent on the basis of new evidence, changing social conditions, or shifts in public policy. Only the Supreme Court itself can overturn or modify its decisions.
Drawing from the Ontario Court of Appeal’s reasoning in R. v. Bedford (2012 ONCA 186), the Court underscored that adherence to precedent preserves legal certainty and the rule of law. The fact that attitudes, values, and perspectives evolve over time does not permit lower courts to re-litigate issues already settled by the Supreme Court.
Finding that McKinney remained controlling and that paragraph 15(1)(c) of the Canadian Human Rights Act was constitutionally valid, the Court allowed the appeal and ordered that the pilots’ complaints be dismissed.