Ending Mandatory Retirement Statement

Currently, the University states that they are unable to accommodate staying beyond age 65 and suggest that the only option is to take the matter up with Departmental Chairs. The University, also states, that they are

“bound to follow the current terms of employment law, unless and until it is modified, which means that mandatory retirement is in effect and must be implemented across the board”.

We are advised that there is no term of “employment law” which impose mandatory retirement. Rather, the current effect of employment-related legislation is merely to permit an employer to impose mandatory retirement at age 65, should the employer wish to do. The employer is not required to impose age 65 retirement. In fact, we would point out that the current University policies and the terms of the University’s pension plans specifically permit the University to postpone retirement past age 65. Indeed, we would also point out that the Pension Benefits Act , which covers the University’s pension plans, has long permitted Ontario pension plans to use a normal retirement date of age 66. We also note that that there is nothing in the Pension Benefits Act (or, as stated, in other Ontario legislation) which would require retirement at age 66 or any other age; rather the Pension Benefits Act specifically contemplates the possibility of postponed retirement beyond a plan’s normal retirement date (as do the University’s policies).

Consequently, based on current legislation and the University’s existing policies, it is open to the University to accede to requests that have been made to allow faculty to continue employment beyond age 65. In view of the announcement by the province some months ago of its anticipated elimination of the terms of Ontario legislation which currently permit (but do not require ) an employer to impose age 65 retirement, the accommodation by the University of such requests would appear to be both reasonable and equitable. Certainly, the University’s hands are not “tied” as has been suggested.

We hope that the University will reconsider its response and resolve the matter for those who may be adversely affected during the transition period pending the introduction of legislation eliminating mandatory age 65 retirement.