Employer Did Not Discriminate Against Cocaine Addict Who Was Dismissed For Cause

In perhaps the most important human rights decision to date dealing with drugs in the workplace, the Supreme Court of Canada recently ruled that an employer may terminate a worker for just cause when he violated a Fitness for Duty Policy by attending work under the influence of drugs. In a landmark human rights decision the Supreme Court ultimately upheld the ruling of the Alberta Human Rights Tribunal that the employer did not unlawfully discriminate when a worker's employment was terminated. The decision, included a provocative dissent, is reviewed and discussed below.

Mr. Stewart ("S") worked in a mine operated by the Elk Valley Coal Corporation, driving a loader. The mine operations were dangerous, and maintaining a safe worksite was a matter of great importance to the employer and employees. To ensure safety, the employer implemented a policy requiring that employees disclose any dependence or addiction issues before any drug‑related incident occurred. If they did, they would be offered treatment. However, if they failed to disclose and were involved in an incident and tested positive for drugs, they would be a risk of having their employment terminated.

S used cocaine on his days off. He did not tell his employer that he was using drugs. When his loader was involved in a workplace accident, he tested positive for drugs and later said, after talking to his union, that he thought he was addicted to cocaine. His employer terminated his employment. S argued that he was terminated for addiction and that this constitutes discrimination under s. 7 of the Alberta Human Rights, Citizenship and Multiculturalism Act.

The Alberta Human Rights Tribunal held that S was terminated for breaching the Fitness for Duty Policy, not because of his addiction. Its decision was affirmed by the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench and by the Alberta Court of Appeal. The S.C.C. held (8:1) that the appeal is dismissed.

Chief Justice McLachlin wrote (Abella, Karakatsanis, Côté, Brown and Rowe JJ. concurring) as follows (at paras. 5, 23-28, 40):

"Like the majority of the Court of Appeal, I find no basis for interfering with the decision of the Tribunal. The main issue is whether the employer terminated Mr. Stewart because of his addiction (raising a prima facie case of discrimination), or whether the employer terminated him for breach of the Policy prohibiting drug use unrelated to his addiction because he had the capacity to comply with those terms (not raising a...