By: Lauren Marshall, volunteer
In this case, a load driver who worked at a coal mining company made a human rights complaint, arguing that he was terminated from his job on the grounds of disability.
This is a case where a decision by the Alberta Human Rights Tribunal was appealed. An “appeal” is when a person asks a higher court to review the decision made by a tribunal or lower court. Like BC, Alberta has two courts that are higher than its human rights tribunal: the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench (like BC’s Supreme Court) and Alberta Court of Appeal. The Supreme Court reviews the Tribunal decision while the Court of Appeal reviews the Supreme Court’s decision.
Only “parties” to a decision are able to request an appeal. Parties in Tribunal cases are the people who make or defend a human rights complaint.
Background: The Human Rights Complaint and Appeals
A load driver who worked at a coal mining company made a human rights complaint, arguing that he was terminated from his job on the grounds of disability. He used cocaine on his days off, but did not tell the company about his substance use. This fact is relevant because the company had a policy that employees with substance use issues should tell the company about it before an accident caused by substance use happened. Employees who disclosed would be offered treatment and were allowed to eventually re-apply for work. If an employee did not disclose their use and tested positive for drugs after an accident, the company could terminate the employee.
One day, the load driver had an accident and tested positive for drugs. He told the company he thought he was addicted to cocaine. He was ultimately terminated.
Addiction is recognized as a disability under Alberta’s Human Rights Act, so the load driver filed a human rights complaint. He first had to prove the following factors to show that workplace discrimination occurred:
That he had a disability protected under the Human Rights Act: This factor was met because the Tribunal found the load driver did have addiction and addiction was a recognized disability under the Act.
That he experienced harmful treatment from his employment or because of a rule of that employment: This factor was met because the termination was harmful to the load driver.
That the disability was a part of the harmful treatment he experienced: This factor was not met according to the Tribunal. The Tribunal thought the load driver was terminated because he breached the policy that required disclosure, not because of his disability.
Since only 2 of 3 factors were met, the Tribunal did not find workplace discrimination. The Tribunal also said that even if discrimination was found, the company accommodated the load driver to the point of “undue hardship”. Undue hardship is when accommodation is too costly or risky to an employer. In this case, the company’s policy had to be harsh to discourage employees from risking safety.
The Appeals
The Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench agreed with the tribunal’s view that the load driver was fired because of his breach of the company policy. But, they disagreed when it came to accommodation, saying that the driver was not aware he had an addiction and thus could not get treatment under the policy. Essentially, the driver was in denial of his disability so he could not self-report.
The Alberta Court of Appeal upheld the Tribunal decision, not the Queen’s Bench decision. The Court of Appeal did not agree that workplaces had to design policies for employees who might be in denial of their addiction. This is because policies that go further than self-reporting could be overly intrusive to workers.
In the end, the Supreme Court of Canada also upheld the Tribunal decision. The Supreme Court made note that the Tribunal was aware of how denial can be a symptom of addiction, but that the harmful effect of the termination was because the load driver did not disclose his use or stop using cocaine. In its assessment of whether the policy was discriminatory, the Supreme Court agreed with the Tribunal’s finding that the policy would have led to the termination of both a casual user and someone with an addiction. Like the Tribunal, the Supreme Court decided that the evidence showed the driver had the mental ability to comply with the company’s policy.
Since the Supreme Court agreed that the test for workplace discrimination was not met, accommodation did not have to be considered. The Tribunal’s decision was upheld.
Disclaimer
The VIHRC blog is for informational purposes only and is not intended to be legal advice.