Artwork

Content provided by Stephen Hammond. All podcast content including episodes, graphics, and podcast descriptions are uploaded and provided directly by Stephen Hammond or their podcast platform partner. If you believe someone is using your copyrighted work without your permission, you can follow the process outlined here https://player.fm/legal.
Player FM - Podcast App
Go offline with the Player FM app!

May 5, 1992 - Olive Patricia Dickason

2:06
 
Share
 

Archived series ("HTTP Redirect" status)

Replaced by: Human Rights a Day

When? This feed was archived on May 24, 2017 03:13 (7y ago). Last successful fetch was on May 24, 2017 00:32 (7y ago)

Why? HTTP Redirect status. The feed permanently redirected to another series.

What now? If you were subscribed to this series when it was replaced, you will now be subscribed to the replacement series. This series will no longer be checked for updates. If you believe this to be in error, please check if the publisher's feed link below is valid and contact support to request the feed be restored or if you have any other concerns about this.

Manage episode 178443091 series 40504
Content provided by Stephen Hammond. All podcast content including episodes, graphics, and podcast descriptions are uploaded and provided directly by Stephen Hammond or their podcast platform partner. If you believe someone is using your copyrighted work without your permission, you can follow the process outlined here https://player.fm/legal.
Mandatory retirement reasonable, says Supreme Court of Canada. As a professor at the University of Alberta, Dr. Olive Patricia Dickason had signed a contract agreeing to the university’s employment terms. One of those terms dictated mandatory retirement at the age of 65. When she was showed the door at 65, however, Dickason didn’t want to go, so she took her case to the province’s human rights body. She won both there and on the case’s first appeal, but the Alberta Court of Appeal sided with the university. The Supreme Court of Canada heard Dickason’s case on May 5, 1992; five months later the majority of judges stated that while her equality rights had been violated, the mandatory retirement policy had been a reasonable limitation of those rights under the circumstances. Although professors are forced to retire, the court noted, they have tenure to ensure academic freedom, and to prevent them being fired for anything but just cause; that makes for a fair trade-off. Further, the court pointed out, universities need to be able to hire a steady stream of young new faculty to keep teaching and research fresh. Although some regarded the court’s decision as a slap in the face for older workers, the majority of Canadians were not clamouring to work past the age 65 regardless of the equality issues. Years after this decision, most provinces did away with mandatory retirement.
  continue reading

391 episodes

Artwork
iconShare
 

Archived series ("HTTP Redirect" status)

Replaced by: Human Rights a Day

When? This feed was archived on May 24, 2017 03:13 (7y ago). Last successful fetch was on May 24, 2017 00:32 (7y ago)

Why? HTTP Redirect status. The feed permanently redirected to another series.

What now? If you were subscribed to this series when it was replaced, you will now be subscribed to the replacement series. This series will no longer be checked for updates. If you believe this to be in error, please check if the publisher's feed link below is valid and contact support to request the feed be restored or if you have any other concerns about this.

Manage episode 178443091 series 40504
Content provided by Stephen Hammond. All podcast content including episodes, graphics, and podcast descriptions are uploaded and provided directly by Stephen Hammond or their podcast platform partner. If you believe someone is using your copyrighted work without your permission, you can follow the process outlined here https://player.fm/legal.
Mandatory retirement reasonable, says Supreme Court of Canada. As a professor at the University of Alberta, Dr. Olive Patricia Dickason had signed a contract agreeing to the university’s employment terms. One of those terms dictated mandatory retirement at the age of 65. When she was showed the door at 65, however, Dickason didn’t want to go, so she took her case to the province’s human rights body. She won both there and on the case’s first appeal, but the Alberta Court of Appeal sided with the university. The Supreme Court of Canada heard Dickason’s case on May 5, 1992; five months later the majority of judges stated that while her equality rights had been violated, the mandatory retirement policy had been a reasonable limitation of those rights under the circumstances. Although professors are forced to retire, the court noted, they have tenure to ensure academic freedom, and to prevent them being fired for anything but just cause; that makes for a fair trade-off. Further, the court pointed out, universities need to be able to hire a steady stream of young new faculty to keep teaching and research fresh. Although some regarded the court’s decision as a slap in the face for older workers, the majority of Canadians were not clamouring to work past the age 65 regardless of the equality issues. Years after this decision, most provinces did away with mandatory retirement.
  continue reading

391 episodes

All episodes

×
 
Loading …

Welcome to Player FM!

Player FM is scanning the web for high-quality podcasts for you to enjoy right now. It's the best podcast app and works on Android, iPhone, and the web. Signup to sync subscriptions across devices.

 

Quick Reference Guide