[1] Federal/Provincial/Territorial Committee of Officials for the Federal/Provincial/Territorial Ministers Responsible for Seniors, Seniors’ Policy Handbook: A Guide for Developing and Evaluating Policies and Programs for Seniors (June 2009), at 3, online: <http://www.seniors.alberta.ca/seniors/docs/SeniorsPolicyHandbook.pdf>. The work of the Committee came to the attention of the LCO after this project was commenced in February 2008.
[2] For information on this project, please visit the LCO website, online: <http://www.lco-cdo.org/en/content/persons-disabilities>
[3] This Paper may be found online: <http://www.lco-cdo.org/en/content/older-adults-pre-study-consultation-paper>
[4] This Paper may be found online: <http://www.lco-cdo.org/en/older-adults-consultation-paper>
[5] Quebec supported the Vision and Principles, but intended to assume full responsibility for the entire range of activities relating to health and social services, and so did not participate further in the development of the NFA, online: <http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/seniors-aines/nfa-cnv/nfaguide1_e.htm>
[6] United Nations, “Principles for Older Persons”, G.A. Resolution 46/91.
[7] United Nations, “Madrid International Plan of Action on Ageing”, Report of the Second World Assembly on Ageing (April 2002), online: <http://www.un-ngls.org/orf/pdf/MIPAA.pdf>
[8] Special Senate Committee on Aging, Final Report, Canada’s Aging Population: Seizing the Opportunity (Ottawa: 2009), online: <http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/SEN/Committee/402/agei/rep/AgingFinalReport-e.pdf>
[9] Ontario Human Rights Commission, A Time for Action: Advancing Human Rights for Older Ontarians (Toronto: 2001), at 20, online: <http://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/resources/discussion_consultation/TimeForActionsENGL>
[10] Ontario Human Rights Commission, Policy on Discrimination Against Older People Because of Age (Toronto: 2007), online: <www.ohrc.on.ca/en/resources/Policies/agepolicyen>
[11] The materials related to the Law Commission of Canada’s project on Law and Relations Between Generations can be found online: <http://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/206/301/law_commission_of_canada-ef/2006-12 06/www.lcc.gc.ca/research_project/age_matter-en.asp.> The project was left uncompleted with the demise of the LCC. The reports of the Nova Scotia Law Reform Commission can be found online: <http://www.lawreform.ns.ca/introduction.htm> The 2008 report of the Western Conference of Law Reform Agencies on enduring powers of attorney may be found on the website of the Alberta Law Reform Institute, online: <http://www.law.ualberta.ca/alri/docs/WCLRA%20epa%20fr.pdf>, as well as on the websites of the other western law reform agencies.
[12] World Health Organization, “Active Ageing: A Policy Framework”, A Contribution of the World Health Organization to the Second United Nations World Assembly on Ageing (April 2002) at 12-13, online: <http://www.who.int/ageing/publications/active/en/index.html>
[13] Federal/Provincial/Territorial Ministers Responsible for Seniors, National Framework on Aging (Minister of Public Works and Government Services Canada, 1998), online: <http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/seniors-aines/nfa-cnv/nfaguide1_e.htm>
[14] For a brief history of elder law in the United States, see Allen Bogutz, “Elder Law: A Personal Perspective” in Israel Doron, ed., Theories of Law and Aging: The Jurisprudence of Elder Law (Heidelberg, Germany: Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, 2009) at 1.
[15] The “Third Age” is generally considered to refer to the span between retirement and the advent of age-imposed limitations, and so includes those who are retired from work, in reasonably good health and socially engaged. The “Fourth Age” includes those individuals of advanced age who are experiencing an increased likelihood of declining health, impairment and end of life. See Charmaine Spencer, “Ageism and the Law: Emerging Concepts and Practices in Housing and Health” (2009) at 3, online: Law Commission of Ontario <http://www.ontla.on.ca/library/repository/mon/24009/304762.pdf>
[16] Martin Turcotte & Grant Schellenberg, A Portrait of Seniors in Canada (Ottawa: Statistics Canada, 2007) at 8, online: <http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/89-519-x/89-519-x2006001-eng.pdf>.
[17] This approach was adopted in the Special Senate Committee on Aging, First Interim Report: Embracing the Challenge of Aging (Ottawa: Senate of Canada, March 2007) at 11. However, the Special Senate Committee’s Final Report rejected this approach, noting the diversity of the aging experience, and the risk of defining the experience of aging solely in terms of the experiences of the “frail elderly” or of reducing the “frail elderly” to their “frailty”.
[18] See, for example, Bill Bytheway, “Ageism and Age Categorization” (2005) 61 Journal of Social Issues 361 at 369 and following.
[19] Law Commission of Canada, Does Age Matter? Law and Relations Between Generations, (Ottawa: 2004) online: <http://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/206/301/law_commission_of_canada-ef/2006-12-06/www.lcc.gc.ca/pdf/does_age_matter.pdf>.This project was not completed due to the de-funding of the Law Commission of Canada in 2006.
[20] Ontario Human Rights Commission, Policy on Discrimination, note 10 at section 1.
[21] See especially the discussion of the reasons of the Supreme Court in the mandatory retirement cases of McKinney v. University of Guelph, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 229 and Stoffman v. Vancouver General Hospital, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 483.
[22] Bytheway, note 18.
[23] Law Commission of Canada, “Does Age Matter? Law and Relationships Between Generations” (Ottawa: 2004) at 22, online: <http://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/206/301/law_commission_of_canada-ef/2006-12-06/www.lcc.gc.ca/pdf/does_age_matter.pdf>
[24] The term “inclusive design” was initially developed in the context of the built environment and persons with disabilities, but has since expanded to include the concept of “design for all”, and to apply to policy and program development, as well as the built environment. The Supreme Court of Canada adopted the principle of inclusive design in British Columbia (Public Service Employee Relations Commission) v. BCGSEU, [1999] 3 S.C.R. 3, stating that:
Employers designing workplace standards owe an obligation to be aware of both the differences between individuals, and differences that characterize groups of individuals. They must build conceptions of equality into workplace standards. By enacting human rights statutes and providing that they are applicable to the workplace, the legislatures have determined that the standards governing the performance of work should be designed to reflect all members of society, in so far as this is reasonably possible. [para. 38]
[25] A helpful survey of the issues associated with the use of age-related categories is provided in Bytheway, note 16.
[26] Cristie Ford, “Bright Lines: Status, Recognition and the Elusive Nature of Ageing” (1996) 2 Appeal: Review of Current Law and Law Reform 4, at para. 3.
[27] Turcotte & Schellenberg, note 16 at 8.
[28] Ontario Human Rights Commission, Policy on Discrimination, note 10 at section 2.2.
[29] This distinction is highlighted in Bytheway, note 18 at 362.
[30] Special Senate Committee on Ageing, Seizing the Opportunity, note 8 at 3.
[31] Turcotte & Schellenberg, note 16 at 11.
[32] Turcotte & Schellenberg, note 16 at 13.
[33] Turcotte & Schellenberg, note 16 at 107 – 110.
[34] Turcotte & Schellenberg, note 16 at 212-218.
[35] Turcotte &