Appeal court restores sanity to Canadian drug use in mining

The Alberta Court of Appeal recently overthrew a ruling by a lower court (the Queen’s Bench) that John Chiasson was the victim of discrimination when he was terminated by Kellogg Brown & Root - basically denied a job at Syncrude, for smoking cannabis.  

I have previously described the facts of this case and decried the silly ruling by the lower court.   Another detailed evaluation of the most recent finding by the appeal court is at this link.  

The appeal court basically concluded that if a company has a “use drugs, no job” policy, it is not discrimination to terminate someone who uses drugs, and is not actually a drug addict.  The court based its finding narrowly on the facts of the case: John Chiasson was not a drug addict therefore is not “disabled” and not deserving any special protection.  And he sought to work in a job described thus:

The project was massive.  Several thousand workers worked at the site…The site was a literal anthill of activity…Some of the largest industrial equipement on the planet was in use and the accident risk was high.  Consequences of accidents could impact workers, the plant, and the environment.”

Sadly for mining employers, the appeal court did not rule on the arguement that testing discriminates against addicts–so in the future we can be sure that somebody denied a job on the basis of drug use will claim to be an addict and thus that his civil rights were violated by drug testing and refusal to be hired. 

The case still leaves pre-employment drug testing as a contentious issue in Canada.  This should not be so: drug use is a personal choice, at least in Canada, but then you should not expect to be employed in a job that involves a risk of accident and harm to somebody else.