|Published on April 03, 2012||Stringer LLP Admin|
The law in Canada regarding random drug and alcohol testing has been inconsistent for some time, with the Alberta and Ontario Courts of Appeal taking divergent paths.
In Ontario, the Court of Appeal has held that employers may conduct random alcohol testing for employees in safety sensitive positions, provided it is a bone fide occupational requirement. However, the Court of Appeal found that a random drug testing policy violated the Ontario Human Rights Code as it could not measure on-the-job impairment but only past drug use (See Entrop v Imperial Oil (2000), CanLII 16800 (ONCA)).
This is in contrast to the Alberta Court of Appeal’s decision in Kellogg Brown where a pre-employment drug testing policy was found to by a bone fide occupational requirement. The Alberta Court of Appeal relied on the fact that cannabis can sometimes linger in the body for several days. As such, even recreational use outside of the workplace could have an effect on the workplace (Chaisson v Kellogg Brown & Root (Canada) Co (2008), 289 D.L.R. (4th) 95 (Kellogg Brown).
Whether an employer can require employees to submit to a drug test seems to depend on the province where they reside. Eventually the Supreme Court will have to decide this issue.
The Supreme Court recently granted leave to appeal a decision regarding a random alcohol testing policy out of a paper mill near the City of Saint John in New Brunswick. The employer, Irving Pulp & Paper, implemented a workplace safety policy in 2006 that included random alcohol testing for employees in safety sensitive positions (click here to see the New Brunswick Court of Appeal decision). Although this case deals only with alcohol testing, the Supreme Court’s decision may shine a light on the path adjudicators should follow when considering random drug testing as well.
- Strong Safety Program Protects Constructor Despite Subcontractor’s Guilty Plea
- What’s cause got to do with it?
- Register Now for our Complimentary, Quarterly HR-Law Webinar
- Supreme Court Finds Store Closure Violated the Statutory Freeze
- Deal or No Deal?
- When is an Owner an Employee?
- What is the next step in AODA compliance?
- Are Your Employment Contracts Enforceable?
- BC Labour Relations Board waters down Irving Pulp
- Keeping the Offer on the Table Essential to Mitigation Defence
- Federal Court of Appeal Revises Test for Family Status Discrimination
- When can a resigning employee join a competitor?
- Workers can Simultaneously Receive WSIB LOE Benefits and ESA Termination Pay
- When is a Whistleblower not a Whistleblower?
- Can an employer be liable to an employee for previous service to a related employer?
- Court Sentences OHSA Violator to Jail due to past Environmental Offences
- Jurisdictional disputes in employment contracts
- When Can an Employer Rely on a Limitation Period when Unilaterally Changing a Contract?
- Are Statements by Inspectors About Whether Charges are Going to be Laid Binding on the MOL?
- What Information Must (or Can) an Employer Disclose to a Union?
- British Columbia Court of Appeal Overturns Lower Court Decision on Profit Sharing Plan
- Personal Liability in Wrongful Dismissal Actions
- Court of Appeal says that Compliance with an Inspector’s Order Should Not Mean a Smaller Fine
- Ontario Imposes Mandatory OH&S Training for Workers and Supervisors
- OLRB opens the door to harassment reprisal complaints under the OHSA
- class action
- class actions
- constitutional law
- construction labour relations
- constructive dismissal
- disability benefits
- employment insurance
- employment law
- employment standards
- fiduciary duties
- first nations
- general litigation
- human rights
- labour law
- labour relations
- occupational health and safety
- restrictive covenants
- stringer llp announcements
- workers compensation
- workers' compensation
- wrongful dismissal
- wrongful dismissal litigation