On an employer's appeal from the dismissal of its appeal from a Board of Inquiry decision, the court considered the legality under the Human Rights Code of a workplace alcohol and drug testing policy for employees in safety-sensitive positions.
The court held that substance abuse, including perceived substance abuse, is a handicap and applied the unified three-step BFOR analysis from Meiorin to assess whether the impugned rules were justified.
Random drug testing, pre-employment drug testing, and mandatory disclosure, reassignment and reinstatement rules were discriminatory and not justified, but random alcohol testing could be justified as a BFOR if sanctions for a positive result were individually tailored.
The court also held that the Board lacked jurisdiction to inquire into the policy's drug-testing provisions, set aside the finding of a s. 13(1) breach, upheld the mental anguish award, and otherwise dismissed the appeal.
