Canadian Law of Work Forum (CLWF)
  • Home
  • About
    • Professor David Doorey
  • Guest Contributors
  • Useful Links
    • Archive
  • Submissions
  • Student Blog Initiative
  • Home
  • About
    • Professor David Doorey
  • Guest Contributors
  • Useful Links
    • Archive
  • Submissions
  • Student Blog Initiative
Canadian Law of Work Forum (CLWF)
Law of Work Archive

Can Law Firms Force Partners to Retire at Age 65?

by David Doorey January 4, 2011
written by David Doorey January 4, 2011

Human rights legislation in Canada prohibits discrimination in employment.  In Ontario, this is found in Section 5 of the Human Rights Code. In Ontario, Section 3 of the Code also prohibits discrimination in contracts of any sort, not just employment contracts.  Both of those sections prohibit discrimination on the basis of “age”, which is defined as 18 and older.   In both Ontario and B.C., until recently, “age” was defined as 18-64, so that forced retirement provisions in employment contracts taking effect on an employee’s 65 birthday or thereafter were lawful, but both provinces repealed the outer age bracket.  That change occurred in 2008 in B.C.
How then do law firms (and other businesses for that matter) maintain contract terms with their partners that require the partners to retire at age 65?
That is the issue in a fascinating recent decision from the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal called McCormick v. Fasken Martineau. McCormick worked decades in the Vancouver office of the firm and by all accounts was an excellent lawyer.  So this is not a case of poor performance.  The partnership agreement that all Fasken partners sign requires partners to “retire as an Equity Partner at the end of the Year in which the Partner reaches the age of 65.”   This would put McCormick out on his butt at the end of this month–January 31, 2011.  He doesn’t want to leave.   And since the firm was not prepared to keep him around, McCormick filed a human rights complaint alleging that the contract is illegal since it discriminated against him on the basis of his age.
Fasken argued that the Human Rights Code of B.C. does not apply to Partners, since they are not “employees” of the firm, and the B.C. Code only regulates employment contracts. The B.C. Code does not have the equivalent of Ontario’s Section 3 ban on discriminatory “contracts”.   Interestingly, Fasken concedes that it obtained a legal opinion advising that the partnership agreement’s mandatory retirement provision violates Section 3 of the Ontario Code (see paragraph 47), but argued in this case that the provision does not violate the B.C. Code.
Do you agree that a partnership agreement requiring partners to retire at a specified age violates Section 3 of the Human Rights Code?  Remember, a contract term that violates the Code is illegal, even if someone “agrees” to it, since you cannot agree to a discriminatory contract term.
Since the B.C. Code does not include a “contract” provision like Ontario, the McCormick case turns on whether he is an “employee”.  If so, then the ban on discriminatory employment terms applies.  If he is not an employee, but an “owner”, as Fasken alleges, then the Code does not apply.  The Tribunal ruled that McCormick is an “employee”, and therefore that the Code applies to his “employment” at Fasken. The Tribunal has not yet ruled whether Fasken discriminated against McCormick.  That will be determined in the next part of the hearing, if this case does not now resolve itself through some sort of settlement before then.
In deciding that Fasken partners are “employees”, the Tribunal applied traditional tests.  It looked at who has control over the work and said this:

The firm managing partner and regional managing partners can delegate specific functions, responsibilities, authorities and accountabilities to him. The firm employs and directs his support staff. It requires that he use its standard forms, and adhere to its policies regarding file acceptance, billing procedures, retainers, time recording, collections and write-offs. The firm requires that he subject his written opinions to review by another partner before giving them to clients. The firm prevents him from acting for certain kinds of clients and in certain kinds of matters which it regards as creating “business conflicts of interest”. The firm may require him to decline profitable work if it considers that will serve the strategic interests of the firm. The firm can appoint both client managers and file managers for clients and matters which Mr. McCormick brings to the firm. The firm requires him to devote the whole of his working time to its business, unless the firm managing partner gives him written permission to do otherwise – which permission may be withdrawn at any time. The firm establishes and administers, and may change at any time, the criteria used to determine his compensation. The firm restricts his ability to go to work for a competitor, or to take clients of the firm with him if he leaves. The firm may expel him. The firm prohibits him from entering into financial arrangements or contracts on behalf of the firm without its authorization. The firm can require him to retire.

In light of these factors, the Tribunal ruled that partners are under substantial control of the firm, more akin to an employee than an independent, self-employed professional. Moreover, the firm determines partners’ pay, rather than a situation in which compensation is directly tied to billable hours.  Considering also that human rights legislation is intended to be read expansively as remedial legislation, all of these factors lead to the conclusion that Fasken partners are “employees” of the law firm.  This case involves Fasken, but it could have been any number of other law firms in Canada.  Mandatory retirement terms at law firms are very common. 
If human rights legislation applies to law firm partnerships–either because partners are “employees” or, in Ontario, because the partnership agreements are covered by Section 3—then I wonder if we might see more women bringing human rights complaints alleging systemic discrimination in law firm practices.  Remember the LaCalamita v. McCarthy Tetrault lawsuit? She opted for the common law route, but might she have been better off filing a human rights complaint alleging she had been denied partnership because of a prevailing “culture of sex discrimination” at McCarthy?  There is no doubt that women fair less well than men in terms of advancement and compensation at many law firms in Canada.   See the report of the Law Society of Upper Canada on the Retention of Women in Private Practice. The firms argue that this is due to performance and greater family commitments, and not gender.  Others argue that there is systemic discrimination engrained in the cultures and practices of these firms.  If that is the case, then human rights litigation may have a better chance of addressing the problems than one-off lawsuits like that filed by LaCalamita.
What do you think?  Would human rights ligation be likely to improve the situation for women in Canadian law firms.

0 comment
0
FacebookTwitterLinkedinEmail
David Doorey

Professor Doorey is an Associate Professor of Work Law and Industrial Relations at York University. He is the Director of the School of HRM at York and Director of Osgoode Hall Law School’s executive LLM Program in Labour and Employment Law and on the Advisory Board of the Osgoode Certificate program in Labour Law. He is a Senior Research Associate at Harvard Law School’s Labor and Worklife Program and a member of the International Advisory Committee on Harvard University’s Clean Slate Project, which is re-imaging labor law for the 21st century

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

previous post
Free Labour Law Scholarship
next post
Why Would an Employer Argue for MORE Notice than the Employee in a Wrongful Dismissal Case?

You may also like

A Cross Country Update on the Card-Check versus...

October 3, 2018

A Successful Strike Vote is All That Stands...

September 16, 2018

Unifor Posts Photos of Replacement Workers as Gander...

September 10, 2018

A Wrongful Dismissal Case and the Absence of...

August 29, 2018

China Said to Quickly Withdraw Approval for New...

August 27, 2018

The Latest Hot E-Commerce Idea in China: The...

August 27, 2018

The Trump Administration Just Did Something Unambiguously Good...

August 27, 2018

Unstable Situations Require Police In Riot Gear Face...

August 27, 2018

Trump’s War on the Justice System Threatens to...

August 27, 2018

Putin Invites Trump to Moscow for Second Meeting...

August 27, 2018

Subscribe via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 218 other subscribers

Follow Us On Social Media

Twitter

Latest Tweets

CLWFFollow

CLWF
Retweet on TwitterCLWF Retweeted
RSandillRicha Sandill@RSandill·
13h

@SCLSclinic and I were so fortunate to represent this client last year. I am thrilled that this decision brings more clarity for family status accommodations rights amidst a pandemic that has tested parents, caregivers, and families like never before. https://twitter.com/CanLawWorkForum/status/1364605259071561730

CLWF@CanLawWorkForum

New from @RSandill (counsel for applicant), discussing important new "family status" discrimination decision from OHRT:

"Kovintharajah v. Paragon Linen & Laundry: When Failure to Accommodate Child Care Needs is “Family Status” Discrimination"

https://lawofwork.ca/13360-2/

Reply on Twitter 1364627677785821185Retweet on Twitter 13646276777858211851Like on Twitter 13646276777858211853Twitter 1364627677785821185
Retweet on TwitterCLWF Retweeted
TheLawofWorkDavid J. Doorey@TheLawofWork·
13h

Here's my latest in @jacobinmag.

If Ontario's labor laws applied in Alabama, the Amazon vote would have been held months ago so workers could get back to their jobs. Instead, the NLRA permits Amazon to conduct a months' long onslaught of anti-union propaganda. https://twitter.com/jacobinmag/status/1364613560425275392

Jacobin@jacobinmag

Amazon workers in Alabama are voting on whether to unionize, but the company is bombarding them with anti-union propaganda. In Canada, by contrast, votes are held quickly, making it harder for companies to stack the deck — a model that can work in the US. http://jacobinmag.com/2021/02/amazon-alabama-canada-labor-law-union-vote

Reply on Twitter 1364623976174092316Retweet on Twitter 13646239761740923168Like on Twitter 136462397617409231613Twitter 1364623976174092316
CanLawWorkForumCLWF@CanLawWorkForum·
14h

New from @RSandill (counsel for applicant), discussing important new "family status" discrimination decision from OHRT:

"Kovintharajah v. Paragon Linen & Laundry: When Failure to Accommodate Child Care Needs is “Family Status” Discrimination"

https://lawofwork.ca/13360-2/

Reply on Twitter 1364605259071561730Retweet on Twitter 13646052590715617304Like on Twitter 13646052590715617304Twitter 1364605259071561730
Load More...

Categories

  • Alberta
  • Artificial Intelligence
  • Australia
  • British Columbia
  • Charter of Rights and Freedoms
  • Childcare
  • Class Action
  • Collective Bargaining
  • Common Law of Employment
  • Comparative Work Law
  • competition law
  • construction
  • COVID-19
  • Diversity
  • Employee Classification
  • Employment Insurance
  • Employment Regulation
  • Europe
  • Financial Industry
  • Fissured Work
  • Freedom of Association
  • frustration of contract
  • Gig Work
  • Health and Safety
  • Health Care
  • Human Rights
  • Immigration
  • Interest Arbitration
  • International Law
  • Labour Arbitration
  • Labour Economics
  • Law of Work Archive
  • Legal Profession
  • Manitoba
  • Migrant Workers
  • Minimum Wage
  • Nova Scotia
  • OLRB
  • Ontario
  • Pension Bankruptcy
  • Privacy
  • Public Sector
  • Quebec
  • Real Life Pleadings
  • Saskatchewan
  • Scholarship
  • Strikes and Lockouts
  • Student Post
  • Supreme Court of Canada
  • technology
  • Transnational Law
  • Uncategorized
  • Unions and Collective Bargaining
  • United States
  • Videos
  • Women and Work
  • Wrongful Dismissal
  • Home
  • About
  • Guest Contributors
Menu
  • Home
  • About
  • Guest Contributors
  • Legal Scholarship
  • Useful Links
  • Archive
Menu
  • Legal Scholarship
  • Useful Links
  • Archive

2020. Canadian Law of Work Forum. All Rights Reserved.