November

An employee who smoked marijuana on the job without legal and medical authorization was not discriminated against when dismissed under his employer 's "zero tolerance" policy, the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal has held.

The employer had a policy of "zero tolerance for drugs on the work site" and gave the employee a letter stating that "if you can 't stop taking drugs on the work site" and don't attend at work, then the employee would be considered to have quit. In summary, the Human Rights Code did not require the employer to accommodate the employee by permitting him to smoke marijuana in the workplace without legal and medical authorization. The employee 's human rights complaint was therefore dismissed.

A human rights adjudicator has ruled a Manitoba woman who was fired for alcohol consumption was discriminated against because she was addicted to alcohol. The adjudicator has ordered the woman to be reinstated, given three years back pay and an additional $10,000 for injury to her dignity and self-respect. The case involves Linda Horrocks, who worked as a healthcare aide. Evidence presented at a human rights board hearing shows Horrocks was frequently absent from work in 2011 and was suspended after being intoxicated on the job. Her employer made Horrocks sign an agreement to abstain from alcohol both on and off the job, and she was fired a year later when she was suspected of drinking outside of work. The adjudicator's ruling says the regional health authority discriminated against Horrocks because it did not accommodate her alcohol addiction or consult with experts about conditions for her returning to work.

In Stewart v Elk Valley Coal Corporation, 2015 ABCA 225, the Alberta Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the Human Rights Tribunal that the termination of a safety sensitive employee involved in a workplace incident while under the influence of cocaine did not constitute discrimination. This decision remains good news for employers. Unlike most Canadian jurisdictions, Alberta employers can still rely on provisions in an alcohol and drug policy that require safety sensitive employees to stop drug use or disclose dependencies in advance of a workplace incident. Employers should carefully examine their alcohol and drug policies to assess whether there are remedial steps to accommodate those with dependency issues before termination becomes the only option.