|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.
- Landon Young named to the Best Lawyers in Canada 2017 list
- AODA Customer Service Standard Changed July 1
- Court of Appeal Gives Mark-Fabricating Teacher an "F"
- Putting on the Brakes: The Limits of the Common Employer Doctrine
- After the Accident: Pitfalls to Avoid for Employers after Workplace Accidents
- It Takes Two to Tango: Superior Court Rules on Employees’ Duty to Facilitate in the Accommodation Process
- Ryan Conlin Speaking on OHS in the Daily Commercial News
- More Time, More Money: New, Unique Employment Standards Act Leaves Proposed by Legislature
- Fixed-Term Fiasco: Employee Profits off of Termination of Term Contract
- Human Rights Tribunal Rules on Family Status Protection for Infrequent and Unexpected Childcare Obligations
- Employer Liable for Disclosure of Employee Confidential Medical and Employment Information
- Yes, the AODA Applies to Construction Employers
- Federal Court of Appeal Rules on When Federal Employers Must Appoint a Workplace Violence Investigator
- New Protections for Children in the Entertainment Industry
- Tip Protection for Servers – New Changes to the ESA
- DNF: Waiver Fails to Protect Self-Insured Employer from Injured Employee’s Court Action
- New Limits on Criminal Records Checks
- Probationary Panacea: Divisional Court Affirms Rights of Employers to Dismiss Probationary Employees without Reasonable Notice
- Ryan Conlin Speaks to the National Post re Metron
- Judge Imposes Jail Time on Metron Construction Site Supervisor
- Jumping to Conclusions Proves Costly for Employer
- accessibility for ontarians with disabilities act
- class actions
- constitutional law
- construction labour relations
- constructive dismissal
- disability benefits
- employment insurance
- employment law
- employment litigation
- employment standards
- fiduciary duties
- first nations
- general litigation
- human rights
- labour law
- labour relations
- occupational health and safety
- restrictive covenants
- stringer llp
- stringer llp announcements
- workers' compensation
- wrongful dismissal litigation