|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.
- Court of Appeal Case Shows Risks of Gaps in WSIB Coverage of Executives
- Specific Termination Provision Upheld After Sale of Business
- Discipline Warranted for Work Refusal Complaint Not Made in Good Faith
- Dealing effectively with OHS inspectors
- AODA compliance: Benefits of Being Ahead of the Game
- Responding to human rights harassment complaints: Guidelines from the HRTO
- How NOT to Draft an Enforceable Non-Competition Agreement
- So Your AODA Customer Service Standard Report is Past Due?
- Announcing our Complimentary Quarterly Roundup Webinar
- New Developments in Immigration Law for Skilled Trades
- New Employment Contract Term Triggers Constructive Dismissal
- Registration Now Open - Managing the Employment Lifecycle Webinar Series
- Where WSIB Benefits Denied Civil Claim May Proceed
- Alberta Human Rights Tribunal Awards Five Years of Back Pay and Reinstatement
- Stringer LLP Obtains $100K Retroactive NEER Adjustment in WSIAT Appeal
- Ontario Court of Appeal Overturns Blue Mountain Accident Reporting Decision
- Make Sure Pre-Employment Screening is Complete Before they Start
- Split Hairs and Sector Disputes
- Early Bird Registration is now open for First Reference's Ontario Employment Law Conference
- Early Morning OLRB Ruling Finds Teachers' Planned Day of Protest an Illegal Strike
- Court of Appeal Protects Manager from Personal Liability on Employee Termination
- 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
- wrongful dismissal litigation