Skip to content

Brought to you by

Dentons logo in black and white

Dentons Canadian Occupational Health & Safety Law

Keeping you current on OHS Laws and Developments in Canada.

open menu close menu

Dentons Canadian Occupational Health & Safety Law

  • Home
  • About Us

Refusal to cooperate with an employer’s Drug and Alcohol Policy leads to termination for just cause

By Cristina Wendel and Jenny Wang
September 4, 2024
  • Caselaw Developments
  • General
  • Occupational Health and Safety
Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share via email Share on LinkedIn

The Alberta Court of King’s Bench has confirmed in Quong v. Lafarge Canada Inc., 2024 ABKB 340, that an employee’s “wilful refusal to abide by a policy critical to ensuring a safe workplace” constituted a repudiation of his employment agreement and upheld his termination for cause.   

Background

At the time of termination, the employee was a site supervisor on a construction project where large machinery and other workplace hazards were present. His responsibilities included overall job site safety for workers and visitors and ensuring compliance with the employer’s safety policies.

Upon testing positive for THC in breach of the employer’s Drug and Alcohol Policy (the Policy), the employer informed the employee that he was required to undergo a substance abuse assessment and participate in the employer’s substance abuse program (SAP). Further, to return to work the employee would be required to sign a “Return to Work Last Chance Agreement” which obligated the employee to submit to random testing for a period of 24 months. The employee refused to engage in this process, citing that it was an unjustified invasion of his privacy and unreasonable in the circumstances. As a result, the employer terminated the employee’s employment and, in turn, the employee filed a wrongful dismissal lawsuit.

Despite the employee’s long tenure and otherwise exemplary record, the court upheld his termination for just cause for the following reasons:

  • The Policy was reasonable, unambiguous, well published, and consistently enforced.
  • The employee was informed of and understood the Policy. In particular:
    • The employee testified that he was aware of and had read the Policy;
    • The employee received annual training on the Policy; and
    • The employee was responsible for training other workers on the Policy, including as part of the site orientation process.
  • While the employee alleged that his use of cannabis was for medical reasons, he did not disclose his cannabis use to the employer prior to testing positive, nor was his use authorized by a health practitioner.
  • The employee would not have been terminated but for his refusal to undergo a substance abuse assessment and participate in the SAP.

In addition, the court noted that while the employer had a duty to accommodate employees with disabilities, which includes substance use disorders, the employee’s refusal to undergo an assessment as part of the SAP prevented his employer from meeting its human rights law obligations.

Conclusion and takeaways

Employers have a legal obligation to maintain a safe workplace pursuant to occupational health and safety legislation and the Criminal Code. Employees similarly have legal and moral duties, to both their employer and fellow employees, to maintain a safe workplace. While these obligations need to be balanced with the employee’s right to privacy, the employee must cooperate with reasonable steps implemented by the employer to ensure the health and safety of the workplace. However, termination for just cause is a high bar to meet and the reasonableness of such a decision will be fact specific.

Recently, Dentons successfully represented a client facing a similar issue, where its employee breached the Drug and Alcohol Policy, refused to comply with reasonable directives and, upon not being returned to work, filed a complaint with the Alberta Human Rights Tribunal. For more information on that decision, please see our post: The Court of King’s Bench of Alberta provides guidance to employers on accommodation for substance abuse treatment.

If you have any questions about implementing and enforcing your policy in the workplace, or any other employment and labour questions, please reach out to Cristina Wendel and Jenny Wang or any member of Dentons’ Employment and Labour group.

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share via email Share on LinkedIn
Subscribe and stay updated
Receive our latest blog posts by email.
Stay in Touch
Cristina Wendel

About Cristina Wendel

Cristina advises and represents employers in all aspects of occupational health and safety matters, including day-to-day compliance, incident response, investigations and defending employers charged with occupational health and safety offences. She also represents federally and provincially regulated, unionized and non-unionized employers in a variety of employment and labour law matters such as wrongful dismissal claims, employment standards disputes, human rights issues, labour arbitrations and labour relations board proceedings.

All posts Full bio

Jenny Wang

About Jenny Wang

Jenny Wang (She/Her/Hers) is an associate in Dentons’ Employment and Labour and Intellectual Property and Technology practice groups and she can provide service to clients who speak mandarin (普通话). Based in Edmonton, her developing practice includes advising clients in relation to a broad range of employment and labour matters such as employment litigation (including wrongful dismissal and constructive dismissal claims), human rights complaints, and union grievances. Among other matters, Jenny’s intellectual property practice encompasses the trademarks process and any accompanying litigation.

All posts Full bio

RELATED POSTS

  • Caselaw Developments
  • Violence and Harassment

Female police officers’ class action claiming gender harassment dismissed because arbitrator, not courts, had jurisdiction

By Adrian Miedema
  • Caselaw Developments
  • Prosecutions / Charges
  • Safety - Risk Management
  • Safety Professionals - Practice Issues

Fear of Personal OHSA Liability Caused Employee’s Anxiety Disorder: Human Rights Tribunal

Supervisors and safety professionals have often told me that they fear being personally charged under the Occupational Health and Safety […]

By Adrian Miedema
  • Caselaw Developments
  • Safety - Risk Management

Reverse burden of proof sinks no-show employer: OLRB awards more than $25,000 for safety-reprisal

An employer that failed to attend a safety-reprisal hearing has been ordered to pay two employees damages of more than […]

By Adrian Miedema

About Dentons

Redefining possibilities. Together, everywhere. For more information visit dentons.com

Grow, Protect, Operate, Finance. Dentons, the law firm of the future is here. Copyright 2023 Dentons. Dentons is a global legal practice providing client services worldwide through its member firms and affiliates. Please see dentons.com for Legal notices.

Categories

  • Amendments to Safety Laws
  • Caselaw Developments
  • COVID-19
  • General
  • Government Safety Investigations
  • International Standards
  • Occupational Health and Safety
  • Other Safety Developments
  • Prosecutions / Charges
  • Safety – Risk Management
  • Safety Professionals – Practice Issues
  • Violence and Harassment

Subscribe and stay updated

Receive our latest blog posts by email.

Stay in Touch

Dentons logo in black and white

© 2025 Dentons

  • Legal notices
  • Privacy policy
  • Terms of use
  • Cookies on this site