Mandatory Retirement — Ontario Employment Law
Related Keywords
About Mandatory Retirement
Is mandatory retirement legal in Ontario? For the vast majority of workers, the answer is a clear no. The practice of forcing employees to retire at a specific age, typically 65, was once common but is now illegal in most provincially regulated workplaces. This is because the Ontario Human Rights Code (OHRC) prohibits discrimination in employment on the basis of age. Critically, the OHRC provides no upper age limit for this protection, meaning you are protected from age discrimination whether you are 18 or 80.
When an employer imposes a mandatory retirement age, they are committing a form of age discrimination. This action is legally viewed as a termination of employment without cause. Consequently, an employee forced to retire is generally entitled to the same rights as any other terminated employee, including reasonable notice of termination or pay in lieu of notice under both the Employment Standards Act, 2000 (ESA) and the common law. In addition to a wrongful dismissal claim, the employee may also have a human rights claim for damages resulting from the discriminatory act.
The primary exception to this rule is if the employer can prove that the retirement age is a 'bona fide occupational requirement' (BFOR). This is an extremely difficult standard to meet. The employer must demonstrate that the age limit is rationally connected to the performance of the job, was adopted in good faith, and is reasonably necessary to accomplish a legitimate work-related purpose. Furthermore, they must prove that it's impossible to accommodate individual employees without incurring undue hardship. This exception is typically reserved for occupations where public safety is a primary concern, such as for certain firefighters or pilots, and is assessed on a case-by-case basis. Because the law in this area involves a complex interplay of human rights, employment standards, and common law, understanding your specific entitlements after being told to retire requires a careful analysis of your circumstances.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can my employer in Ontario force me to retire when I turn 65?
No, in almost all cases. Forcing an employee to retire at age 65 is a form of age discrimination, which is prohibited by the Ontario Human Rights Code. This action is treated as a termination without cause.
What is a 'bona fide occupational requirement' (BFOR) for retirement?
A BFOR is a rare exception where an employer can justify an age-based rule, like mandatory retirement. They must prove the age limit is essential for performing the job safely and effectively and that they cannot accommodate older workers without undue hardship. This is a very high legal standard to meet.
My company has a retirement policy. Is this allowed?
It depends. A policy that forces employees to retire at a certain age is generally illegal. However, a policy that outlines voluntary retirement options, pension benefits, and transition support is perfectly legal and common.
What are the deadlines if I was illegally forced to retire?
You must act quickly. You have one year from the date of the discriminatory act to file an application with the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario. For a wrongful dismissal lawsuit to claim severance, you have a two-year limitation period from the date of your termination.
Do different rules apply to unionized employees or federally regulated jobs?
Yes, the rules can be different. Collective agreements may contain specific retirement provisions, and federally regulated industries (like banking and aviation) are governed by the Canadian Human Rights Act. These situations can be complex and may require a different legal approach.
What should I do if my manager keeps asking when I'm going to retire?
If you feel you are being pressured to retire, you should document these conversations and politely but firmly state that you are not planning to retire. If the pressure creates a hostile work environment, it may be time to consult with an employment lawyer to understand your options.
Common Scenarios
- A senior accountant is told by management that her last day will be the end of the month she turns 65, as this has always been 'company tradition'.
- A 68-year-old retail manager is excluded from strategic planning meetings and told that younger leadership is needed for the company's future, effectively pressuring her to resign.
- A university is challenged by a tenured professor after being informed they must retire at the end of the academic year, based on the university's pre-existing governing statutes.
- An airline pilot is notified that, in accordance with their collective agreement and federal aviation regulations, they must retire from flying commercial aircraft at age 60.
What You Should Know
- Do not sign any retirement or resignation documents if you are being forced out. Signing could be interpreted as you voluntarily leaving, which may forfeit your right to termination pay and human rights damages.
- Keep a detailed written record of any conversation or action related to your age or retirement, including dates, times, and specific comments made.
- If you are forced to retire, understand that this is legally a termination. You have rights to notice or pay in lieu under the ESA and common law, separate from any human rights claim.
- Be mindful of strict legal deadlines. You have one year to file a human rights claim and two years to file a wrongful dismissal lawsuit in Ontario.
- The justification for mandatory retirement is highly technical, especially in safety-sensitive roles. Seeking advice from an employment lawyer is crucial to confirm if the policy applied to you is lawful.
Featured Cases
C. v. Corporation of the City of Mississauga
2015 ONSC 236 (CanLII) · 2015-01-30Mandatory Retirement BFOR: Firefighters Age 60
This is a judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision dismissing applications by suppression firefighters challenging mandatory retirement at age 60. The Divisional Court reviewed whether the Tribunal's finding that mandatory retirement was a bona fide occupational requirement (BFOR) and that the City fulfilled its procedural duty to accommodate was reasonable.
G. v. Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario et al.
2014 ONSC 1840 (CanLII) · 2014-03-24Firefighter Age Discrimination: Mandatory Retirement Judicial Review
This is a judicial review of the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario's decision to dismiss a firefighter's age discrimination claim under section 5 of the Human Rights Code. The Divisional Court upheld the Tribunal's decision as reasonable, finding that the mandatory retirement age of 60 for suppression firefighters constituted a bona fide occupational requirement justified by health and safety concerns.
Association of Justices of the Peace of Ontario v. Ontario (Attorney General)
2008 CanLII 26258 (ON SC) · 2008-06-02Mandatory Retirement: Justices of the Peace Age 70 Challenge
A constitutional challenge brought by the Association of Justices of the Peace of Ontario against the Attorney General regarding the mandatory retirement age of 70 for justices of the peace. The court analyzed whether this requirement violated equality rights under section 15(1) of the Charter and, if so, whether it was justified under section 1. The court found the provision unconstitutional and applied a 'reading in' remedy to align the retirement age with that of provincial court judges.
A. v. Windsor-Essex County Health Unit
2006 CanLII 29277 (ON SC) · 2006-08-25Wrongful Dismissal: Employee Awarded 18 Months Notice After Mandatory Retirement Claim
A wrongful dismissal case where the plaintiff was required to retire at age 65 despite no mandatory retirement policy. The court found the defendant failed to establish such a policy and awarded the plaintiff 18 months’ salary in lieu of notice, applying common law principles of reasonable notice. The case also included a breach of employment contract claim regarding unpaid salary, which was found to be barred by the six-year limitation period. The court also addressed whether the plaintiff mitigated damages by seeking alternative employment in Ontario and British Columbia, concluding that the plaintiff took reasonable steps.
L. v. Stratford (City)
1993 CanLII 298 (ON CA) · 1993-12-22Mandatory Retirement: Bona Fide Occupational Requirement Test
This is an appeal to the Court of Appeal for Ontario regarding the validity of a mandatory retirement policy for police officers. The appeal concerns whether the policy constituted a bona fide occupational requirement and whether the Divisional Court correctly applied the standard of review and the subjective and objective tests for justification under the Human Rights Code. This decision was appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada, which reversed it (L. v. Stratford (City), [1995] 3 SCR 733). The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and dismissed the complaint, holding that the mandatory retirement policy at age 60 was justified as a bona fide occupational requirement. The appellant employer successfully established both the subjective and objective elements of the defence without a duty of individual accommodation under the objective test applicable to direct discrimination in this context, effectively upholding the mandatory retirement rule for police officers in Stratford at that time.
L. v. Stratford (City)
1992 CanLII 7612 (ON SC) · 1992-06-08Human Rights: Mandatory Retirement at 60 Challenged Under Ontario Code
A human rights case challenging a mandatory retirement policy at age 60 under the Ontario Human Rights Code. The court examined whether the policy constituted age-based discrimination and whether it could be justified as a bona fide occupational requirement (BFOR), considering factors such as job performance, safety, and reasonable accommodation. The case later reached the Supreme Court of Canada (L. v. Stratford (City), [1995] 3 SCR 733). The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and dismissed the complaint, holding that the mandatory retirement policy at age 60 was justified as a bona fide occupational requirement. The appellant employer successfully established both the subjective and objective elements of the defence without a duty of individual accommodation under the objective test applicable to direct discrimination in this context, effectively upholding the mandatory retirement rule for police officers in Stratford at that time.
L. v. Stratford (City)
1992 CanLII 8561 (ON CTGDDC) · 1992-05-08Mandatory Retirement: Police Officers Age Discrimination
This judicial review concerns a challenge to a mandatory retirement policy for police officers at age 60, alleging age discrimination under the Ontario Human Rights Code. The Divisional Court reviewed the Human Rights Tribunal's findings on whether the policy constituted a bona fide occupational requirement, examining both subjective and objective tests regarding safety and performance. The court also addressed allegations of bias by the board chairman.
M. v. University of Guelph
1987 CanLII 179 (ON CA) · 1987-12-10M. v. University of Guelph: Mandatory Retirement & Charter
This appeal addressed whether the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms applies to universities regarding mandatory retirement policies and whether section 9(a) of the Ontario Human Rights Code, 1981, which limited age discrimination protection to persons under 65, violated equality rights. The Court of Appeal held that the Charter did not apply to universities as they were not performing governmental functions, but found that section 9(a) of the Code violated section 15(1) of the Charter by discriminating against individuals aged 65 and older. However, this violation was upheld as a reasonable limit under section 1 of the Charter to preserve tenure systems and pension financing. This decision was appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada, which upheld it (Mckinney v. University of Guelph, [1990] 3 SCR 229). The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that universities are not government entities subject to the Charter and that the Human Rights Code provision restricting age discrimination protection to those under 65 is a reasonable limit under section 1 of the Charter. The mandatory retirement policies stand as valid and enforceable collective agreement terms or institutional policies for the universities involved in this proceeding, and the limit in the human rights legislation stands as constitutional within the context of the issues raised here; those whose claims for mandatory retirement at age 65 had been struck down therefore found no remedy under the Charter from the universities themselves nor the Human Rights Commission at the time.
Re Ontario English Catholic Teachers Association et al. and Essex County Roman Catholic School Board
1987 CanLII 4043 (ON SC) · 1987-02-03Age Discrimination: Mandatory Retirement Policy Under Charter Review
A case examining whether a school board's mandatory retirement policy at age 65 infringes on the equality rights of employees under section 15(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The court considers whether the policy constitutes 'law' under the Charter and whether it is a reasonable limit on equality rights under section 1.
Re M. and Board of Governors of the University of Guelph et al. and seven other applications
1986 CanLII 2832 (ON SC) · 1986-10-15Mandatory Retirement and Age Discrimination in Universities
A constitutional challenge to mandatory retirement at age 65 under university collective agreements and pension plans, examining whether such policies violate the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Human Rights Code due to age discrimination. The case later reached the Supreme Court of Canada (Mckinney v. University of Guelph, [1990] 3 SCR 229). The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that universities are not government entities subject to the Charter and that the Human Rights Code provision restricting age discrimination protection to those under 65 is a reasonable limit under section 1 of the Charter. The mandatory retirement policies stand as valid and enforceable collective agreement terms or institutional policies for the universities involved in this proceeding, and the limit in the human rights legislation stands as constitutional within the context of the issues raised here; those whose claims for mandatory retirement at age 65 had been struck down therefore found no remedy under the Charter from the universities themselves nor the Human Rights Commission at the time.
Re B. and Governing Council of the University of Toronto et al.
1985 CanLII 2198 (ON SC) · 1985-11-26Age Discrimination Case: University Mandatory Retirement Policy Challenged Under Charter
A case involving a university employee challenging a mandatory retirement policy at age 65 under section 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The applicant sought an interlocutory injunction to prevent enforcement of the policy, but the application was dismissed. The court considered whether the policy violated equality rights and whether damages could adequately compensate the applicant for the harm caused by the policy.
S. v. Air Canada et al.
1982 CanLII 1867 (ON SC) · 1982-01-19Age Discrimination: Challenge to Mandatory Retirement for Airline Pilots
A case challenging the mandatory retirement at age 60 for airline pilots under a collective agreement, alleging age discrimination under the Canadian Human Rights Act. The court considered whether the provision constitutes a bona fide occupational requirement and the balance between collective bargaining rights and anti-discrimination protections.
S. v. Air Canada
1982 CanLII 3273 (ON HCJDC) · 1982-01-19Mandatory Retirement: Human Rights Jurisdiction vs. Injunction
This is a procedural ruling regarding jurisdiction and interim relief in a human rights dispute involving airline pilots and a mandatory retirement age. The court determined that the Human Rights Commission has exclusive jurisdiction over the complaint, thereby precluding the issuance of an injunction to stop the mandatory retirement policy while the complaint is pending.
L. v. Air Canada et al.
1981 CanLII 1854 (ON SC) · 1981-10-06Age Discrimination: Airline Pilot Challenges Compulsory Retirement at 60
A wrongful dismissal and workplace discrimination case involving an airline pilot who sought an interim injunction to prevent compulsory retirement at age 60 while pursuing a claim with the Canadian Human Rights Commission. The court ruled that the compulsory retirement age was an implied term of the plaintiff’s employment contract and that the provincial court lacked jurisdiction to issue an injunction affecting a federal statutory body.
L. v. Air Canada
1981 CanLII 2884 (ON SC) · 1981-10-06Compulsory Retirement: Air Canada Pilot's Age 60 Retirement Complies with Employment Terms
A wrongful dismissal case involving an Air Canada pilot who retired at age 60 under employer policy and collective agreement. The court found the retirement complied with employment terms and that the plaintiff had no common law right to avoid retirement at that age. The case also addressed jurisdictional issues regarding an injunction and age discrimination under the Canadian Human Rights Act.
S. v. Air Canada
1981 CanLII 4354 (ON SC) · 1981-08-31Age Discrimination: Injunction Prevents Air Canada Mandatory Retirement
A merits decision involving a challenge to a mandatory retirement policy at Air Canada, alleging age discrimination under the Canadian Human Rights Act. The court considered whether the collective agreement provision violates human rights and whether an interim injunction should be granted to prevent enforcement of the policy pending resolution by the Canadian Human Rights Commission.
S. v. Air Canada
1981 CanLII 2883 (ON SC) · 1981-08-17Mandatory Retirement Discrimination: Pilot Challenges Air Canada Policy
A pilot sought an interim injunction to prevent Air Canada from enforcing a mandatory retirement at age 60, pending a determination under the Canadian Human Rights Act. The case examines whether the collective agreement provision violates human rights protections, particularly regarding age discrimination, and balances individual rights with collective agreement terms.
Re Borough of Etobicoke and Ontario Human Rights Commission et al.
1979 CanLII 1675 (ON SC) · 1979-09-20Mandatory Retirement for Firefighters and Human Rights Code Compliance
A human rights employment case involving firefighters challenging a mandatory retirement age of 60 under a collective agreement. The court examined whether this policy constitutes age discrimination under the Ontario Human Rights Code and whether it qualifies as a bona fide occupational qualification. The case later reached the Supreme Court of Canada (Ontario Human Rights Commission v. Etobicoke, [1982] 1 SCR 202). The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal and restored the board of inquiry's order. The Court held that the employer failed to prove that the mandatory retirement of firefighters at age sixty was a bona fide occupational qualification.
Re Ontario Human Rights Commission and City of North Bay
1977 CanLII 1253 (ON CA) · 1977-09-12Mandatory Retirement: Firefighters & Human Rights
This is an appeal concerning whether mandatory retirement at age 60 for firefighters constituted discrimination under the Ontario Human Rights Code. The Court of Appeal reviewed the Board of Inquiry's finding that the mandatory retirement provision was a bona fide occupational qualification justified by the physical and mental stresses of firefighting.
Re Sandwich, Windsor and Amherstburg Railway Co. et al.
1961 CanLII 153 (ON CA) · 1961-12-16Mandatory Retirement: Arbitration Award Quashed
An appeal to the Court of Appeal for Ontario from an arbitration board's award regarding a collective agreement's pension provisions and mandatory retirement. The majority held that the arbitration board exceeded its jurisdiction by implying a restriction on the employer's management rights to enforce mandatory retirement at age 65, allowing the appeal and quashing the arbitration award.