SCC In Stewart V. Elk Valley, Upholds Employer's 'No Free Accident' Alcohol And Drug Policy

On June 15, 2017, the Supreme Court of Canada released a landmark decision in Stewart v Elk Valley Coal Corp. (2017 SCC 30), reinforcing the right of employers to take proactive risk mitigation and management measures through the adoption of alcohol and drug policies to ensure workplace safety.

In this case, plaintiff Ian Stewart (Stewart) worked in a safety-sensitive mine operated by defendant Elk Valley Coal Corporation/Cardinal River Operations (Elk Valley), which had an alcohol and drug policy (the "Policy") that required employees to disclose any addiction issues before the occurrence of an alcohol or drug-related incident. Employees who adhered to the Policy and self-disclosed would be offered treatment. However, those employees who failed to self-disclose and tested positive for alcohol or drugs after being involved in an accident, could be terminated.

Stewart was involved in a workplace accident and subsequently tested positive for cocaine. During an investigation meeting with his employer following the positive test, he stated that he was addicted to cocaine. Stewart had not disclosed his addiction prior to the incident. Pursuant to the Policy, Elk Valley terminated his employment. Stewart argued that he was terminated for his addiction, which constituted discrimination under section 7 of the Alberta Human Rights Act, RSA 2000, c A-25.5.

History

The Alberta Human Rights Tribunal (the Tribunal) held that while Stewart suffered from a disability, namely addiction, he was terminated for breaching the Policy, not his addiction (2012 AHRC 7). Therefore, there was no prima facie discrimination. Further, in the alternative, the discrimination alleged constituted a bona fideoccupational requirement (BFOR) and Elk Valley accommodated Stewart's disability to the point of undue hardship. The Court of Queen's Bench and Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal of the Tribunal's decision (2013 ABQB 756 and 2015 ABCA 225).

Supreme Court of Canada

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed Stewart's appeal in an 8-1 decision. Chief Justice McLachlin delivered the majority decision on behalf of herself, and Justices Abella, Karakatsanis, Côté, Brown, and Rowe. Justices Moldaver and Wagner issued joint reasons, concurring in the result, disagreeing with the majority on the issue of prima facie discrimination, but finding that the employer met its obligation to accommodate to the point of undue hardship. Justice Gascon issued dissenting reasons.

Prima Facie...