Cases Considered: Walsh v. Mobil Oil Canada, 2008 ABCA 268
PDF Version: Court of Appeal Rules in Walsh Case: End of a Seventeen Year Journey?
People often cite the length of time it takes to resolve human rights complaints as a deterrent to making such complaints. Delorie Walsh’s case may be cited as an extreme example. And, if the respondents appeal the current decision to the Supreme Court of Canada, the case might not be over yet.
Cases Considered: Director of the
In the May 29, 2008 version of his S.C.C. L@wletter Eugene Meehan reports that the Supreme Court of Canada has dismissed the application of the Director of the Alberta Human Rights and Citizenship Commission for leave to appeal in the case of Kellogg Brown & Root (Canada) Company (at the time of writing the SCC’s decision on leave to appeal is not yet available on its website). For posts on the Alberta Court of Appeal’s decision in this case, see Linda McKay Panos, “Court of Appeal Sends Court of Queen’s Bench Decision to Rehab” and David Corry, “Drug Testing: A Wake-up Call to the Courts”. Linda and David disagreed about the correctness of the Alberta Court of Appeal’s approach, which overturned the decision of Madam Justice Sheilah Martin and upheld the position of the employer. It is unfortunate that the Supreme Court will not take advantage of the opportunity to clarify the law in this area. This leaves it uncertain for employers, employees and human rights tribunals whether perceived addiction to alcohol and drugs is covered by human rights legislation, and in what circumstances employers are entitled to implement drug and alcohol testing policies without running afoul of human rights legislation.
Cases Considered: United Nurses of Alberta, Local 33 v. Capital Health Authority (Royal Alexandra), 2008 ABQB 126
PDF Version: Employment and Disability: Some of the Challenges
The recent decision of Justice D.A. Sulyma in United Nurses of Alberta, Local 33 v. Capital Health Authority (Royal Alexandra) provides insight into the challenges faced by both an employer and an employee in accommodating a disability in the workplace. The employer seeks information about the disability and how it should be accommodated, while the employee seeks to protect his or her privacy, in addition to an accommodation of the disability. The court must sort these issues out while also determining whether the employee has a disability.
Cases Considered: Alberta (Human Rights and Citizenship Commission) v. Kellogg Brown & Root (Canada) Company, 2007 ABCA 426
PDF Version: Drug Testing: A Wake-up Call to the Courts
Does it take the Hinton train disaster, the sinking of the Exxon Valdez and the sinking of the Queen of the North to send human rights commissions and the courts a wake-up call? In all of these tragedies, the crews responsible were under the influence of drugs and alcohol. Yet, until the Alberta Court of Appeal decision in Kellogg, Brown & Root, the courts had elevated casual drug users to a protected minority group under the guise of human rights legislation.
Cases Considered: Alberta (Human Rights and Citizenship Commission) v. Kellogg Brown & Root (Canada) Company, 2007 ABCA 426, overruling Alberta (Human Rights and Citizenship Commission) v. Kellogg Brown & Root (Canada) Company, 2006 ABQB 302, which overruled John Chiasson v. Kellogg, Brown & Root (Canada) Company (Halliburton Group Canada Inc.) (February 14, 15, 16 and March 1, 2005; Colonel (Ret’d) Delano W. Tolley, Panel Chair)
PDF Version: Court of Appeal Sends Court of Queen’s Bench Decision to Rehab
In December 2007, the Court of Appeal of Alberta overturned a detailed Court of Queen’s Bench decision on pre-employment drug testing. The case originated in the Alberta Human Rights and Citizenship Commission (“AHRCC”). Mr. Chaisson, the complainant, was offered a position as a receiving inspector with Kellogg Brown & Root (“KBR”) ’s oil sands project, but was required to undergo a pre-employment medical and drug test, as a condition of his employment. Two weeks after commencing employment, the complainant’s results came back, indicating that he had tested positive for the presence of marijuana. Consequently, the complainant was terminated. The AHRCC’s Human Rights Panel dismissed Chaisson’s complaint on the basis that there was no evidence that the complainant suffered from a real or perceived disability, as he was only a recreational drug user, and thus was unable to substantiate a case of prima facie discrimination on the basis of physical disability. The Panel held that drug impairment of any kind would impact the complainant’s performance, and as such the pre-employment drug test was a reasonable requirement for the position for which the complainant was applying.
Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén
