Lafarge Canada was justified in terminating a site superintendent who tested positive for THC following a minor vehicle accident at a worksite, according to a ruling by the Court of King’s Bench of Alberta.
The court supported Lafarge’s decision, emphasizing that the worker — G.Q. — violated the company’s drug and alcohol policy, which prohibits THC, the active ingredient in cannabis, above specified levels.
Incident and termination
The incident occurred on June 3, 2022, when G.Q. was involved in a minor collision at a worksite. Post-incident testing revealed THC levels exceeding Lafarge’s permitted threshold. Despite being offered the chance to undergo a substance abuse assessment and participate in a substance abuse program, G.Q. refused and was subsequently terminated on June 20, 2022.
G.Q., a Lafarge employee since 1981, contested the termination, arguing that the company’s policy was unreasonable and that his dismissal violated his employment contract, which he believed should have included progressive discipline.
Court’s analysis and decision
The court found Lafarge’s drug and alcohol policy, established in 2009, to be reasonable, clear, well-publicized, and consistently enforced. Justice Colin C.J. Feasby noted that the policy was an implied term of G.Q.’s employment agreement, which he had accepted by continuing his employment and enforcing the policy as a supervisor.
The court emphasized that Lafarge’s policy mandated drug testing after workplace incidents to ensure safety, aligning with best practices and legal requirements. Expert testimony supported the cautious approach to cannabis use in safety-sensitive environments, citing lingering effects and the lack of definitive impairment data.
The court stated that G.Q.’s refusal to undergo a substance abuse assessment and participate in the program was a critical factor in justifying his termination. It dismissed G.Q.’s arguments that Lafarge should have considered his long service, age, job performance, the minor nature of the incident, and the limited harm caused to the company.
Justifying cause in this case
Justice Feasby noted that in many cases, considerations such as honesty and cooperation would be relevant, but G.Q.’s refusal to comply with the policy requirements was incompatible with continued employment. The court highlighted Lafarge’s legal obligation to maintain a safe workplace and its duty to accommodate employees with disabilities, including substance use disorder. G.Q.’s refusal prevented Lafarge from fulfilling these obligations.
The court concluded that G.Q.’s behavior constituted a repudiation of his employment contract, dismissing his claim for wrongful dismissal and leaving legal costs to be agreed upon by the parties.
For a more detailed analysis, see the full story on HR Law Canada.
