The following is a summary of the article titled “Supreme Court rules against lawyer who wouldn’t retire at 65” by Jeff Gray, taken from The Globe and Mail news website (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/industry-news/the-law-page/supreme-court-rules-against-lawyer-who-wouldnt-quit/article18793866/).

On Thursday May 22nd the Supreme Court of Canada ruled in favour of Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP, located in Vancouver, in their case against Mr. McCormick, a former partner of the company. Mr. McCormick argued discrimination on the basis of age when he was asked to abide by the company’s policy and retire at age 65. In 2010, Mr. McCormick went to court with the argument that he should not be made to leave the company because he could be considered an employee and therefore protected by provisions under the human rights code.

It is not rare practice for law or accounting firms functioning as limited liability partnerships to have a forced retirement. It is a policy put in place in order to ensure that newer employees have the opportunity to further themselves in the company. The issue in court was whether or not an individual could simultaneously claim the title of both partner and employee. In this case it was decided that being an equity partner, enabled Mr. McCormick to partake in some of the decision making and share in the firm’s financial gains, thus eliminating his right to be classified as an employee and excluding the option for Mr. McCormick to rely on the provincial human rights codes.

The presiding judge, Justice Rosalie Abella, stated that her judgement was made according to the context of the situation in question. Mr. McCormick’s argument of being an employee as well as a partner could not be supported given his active role in the company during his term of employment. This is a significant decision as it does set a precedent for other firms with comparable business plans. However, despite the court’s decision, there were still some discrepancies amongst the legal authorities as to whether the decision it was the right one. When considering that partners may have varying responsibilities within a company, some may find themselves in a situation that does in fact classify them as an employee. Therefore, it would not be a stretch for a similar incident to arise and perhaps end in a different decision.

By: Amber McVittie-Quinn