Challenging Ideas On Deciding On Indispensable Factors For Whmis And Tdg Online

Rather, it was because of hisbreach of the Policy. In arriving at this conclusion, Chief Justice McLachlin went onto stress that the appellant could have complied with the Policy,but chose not to. Moreover, even if the appellant was in denialabout his addiction: he understood that he should not take drugsbefore work; he could have decided not to take drugs in the firstplace; and he had the capacity to disclose his drug use to hisemployer. As such, "[d]enial about his addiction was thusirrelevant in this case." Chief Justice McLachlin also underscored that the Policy itselfwas not discriminatory since any employee could be terminated fromhis or her employment for failure to comply with its terms. Whethera worker was an addict or a casual drug user made no differenceand, therefore, failure to follow the Policy could be sufficientgrounds for termination of employment. Of course, this outcome wasdependent on the fact that the appellant worked in asafety-sensitive position at a safety-sensitive workplace. Given the finding that the appellant was not discriminatedagainst, the Chief Justice did not consider the issue of whetherElk Valley sufficiently accommodated the appellant. Notably, Chief Justice McLachlin took the opportunity toreaffirm that, in discrimination cases, the protected ground orcharacteristic in question need only be "a factor" inorder to invite a finding of discrimination. It is not appropriateor necessary to quantify "how much" something contributesto the adverse treatment.

For the original version including any supplementary images or video, visit http://www.mondaq.com/canada/x/604200/employment+litigation+tribunals/Supreme+Court+Of+Canada+Rules+No+Discrimination+For+Termination+Of+Drug+Addicted+Employee

You may also be interested to read

Posted on Tags