Canada: Addiction At The Workplace: When Should "Denial" Be A Consideration In Accommodation Strategies?

Last Updated: July 8 2015
Article by Lisa Gallivan and Alison Strachan

The appellant's approach amounts to a suggestion that even an employee in a highly safety sensitive position who knows precisely what he is doing can unilaterally and in a secretive manner disregard the profound safety obligations of his employment not only to the employer but to his co-workers. The absolution for doing so is said to arise from error or misconception on the part of that employee – namely denial. In our view, legitimizing such a subjective manner of defining one's safety-related employment duties in hazardous work environments loses touch with the test in Meiorin, and with the objectives of anti-discrimination laws.(Emphasis added)

The Alberta Court of Appeal recently released a decision on addiction.  The decision, Stewart v. Elk Valley Coal Corporation, 2015 ABCA 225 (CanLII) is a must read for those dealing with addiction in the workplace.

What happened?

In this case, the employee, Ian Stewart ("Stewart"), complained that he had been discriminated against by Elk Valley Coal Corporation ("Elk Valley") when Elk Valley "refuse[d] to continue to employ" him following a collision between a vehicle he was operating and another vehicle on the worksite. Stewart's ability to operate the vehicle was affected by his use of cocaine.

A Human Rights Tribunal found that the manner in which Elk Valley dealt with Stewart did not constitute discrimination.  On judicial review the chambers judge agreed. However, the chambers judge found that the tribunal erred on the issue of whether there had been prima facie discrimination.

In terminating the employee, Elk Valley relied upon a bona fide occupational requirement. It was on this issue that the discussion on enabling and denial arose. Elk Valley's policy stated that employees "with a dependency or addition" could seek assistance for this problem, without fear of discipline, including termination, provided that this was done before a "Significant Event" occurred:

The Company will assist its employees with problems of abuse, dependency, or addiction associated with Alcohol, Illegal Drugs and Medications, with an aim to preventing these problems. The Company, through its Employee Assistance Program, will provide access to treatment resources to its employees and will encourage employee participation in effective prevention and rehabilitation programs where appropriate.

No employee with a dependency or addiction will be disciplined or involuntarily terminated because of the employee's involvement in a rehabilitation effort or for voluntarily requesting rehabilitative help in overcoming the problem. Involvement in a rehabilitative effort or seeking rehabilitative help for an abuse, dependency or addiction problem after a Significant Event has occurred, or after a demand is made for the employee to undergo testing for reasonable cause under this Policy, will not prevent an employee from being disciplined or terminated. An employee's use of the Employee Assistance Program or other rehabilitation efforts does not eliminate the requirement of meeting satisfactory performance levels or compliance with this Policy.

After an education session on May 2, 2005, Stewart signed a form saying that he understood the Policy. However, at the Tribunal hearing, he admitted that he chose not to inform Elk Valley that he used cocaine because "he did not think that he had a problem with drug use" prior to the accident.

The Tribunal and the chambers judge agreed that Stewart was not terminated after the incident because of his addiction or dependency, but was terminated for violation of the policy. As a result, there was no discrimination. The difference between the two levels of decision makers related to "reasonable accommodation".  This is where the discussion of enabling occurred. At page 14 of the Court of Appeal decision, the Tribunal was quoted as saying the following:

...However, again, in my view offering an assessment without termination to Mr. Stewart as a consequence, given that Mr. Stewart was able to make conscious choices regarding his drug use, would dilute the purpose of the Policy. I am also mindful of Dr. Beckson's evidence that failing to hold Mr. Stewart accountable through significant negative consequences typically only enables drug use, and would not provide Mr. Stewart with sufficient motivation to change his behavior. With all due respect to the opinion of Dr. Els, while rehabilitation may be a disincentive to a drug dependent employee, in my view, termination of employment acts as a much greater deterrent to an employee like Mr. Stewart, who is capable of making choices about his behavior. Similarly, a suspension as a disciplinary measure, as opposed to the harsher consequence of termination, is not of sufficient consequence to strengthen the deterrent effect of the Policy, decrease drug use and addiction affecting the workplace, and ultimately increase safety.

Additionally, allowing the employee who comes forward the opportunity to access treatment resources without fear of discipline, should be considered as part of the accommodation provided to Mr. Stewart and other employees with addiction disabilities. Offering the opportunity of reinstatement in 6 months under certain reasonable conditions, also contributes to accommodation responsibilities. The Respondent agreeing to pay 50% of the rehabilitation program facility cost, as set out in the termination letter, also provides accommodation for Mr. Stewart's disability.

...I accept that the accommodation offered through the ameliorative disclosure provisions of the Policy, the 6 month offer of reinstatement and the offer to pay a portion of the rehabilitation costs as per the termination letter, constituted appropriate accommodation in the facts of this case, to the point of undue hardship. ...

(Emphasis added)

The chambers judge felt that the "decisive point for accommodation" was Stewart's "state of denial" that caused him to think that he had nothing to report under the policy. In other words, Stewart's denial excused him from knowing that he needed treatment.

The flaw in the argument, and respectfully I find in the Tribunal's reasoning and findings, is the absence of any evidence that Stewart knew, on or before the date of the accident in question, that he needed treatment under the Policy. Evidence of his addiction came only after the fact. No one disagreed that Stewart had no pre-accident awareness of it.

Both experts before the Tribunal agreed Stewart was to some extent in denial (although of what there appeared to be some disagreement – Stewart's expert suggested he was squarely in denial of his addiction, whereas Elk Valley's expert appeared to allow only that he was in denial of the effects of drug use on his job-related performance, although in cross examination he appeared to allow that "...[Stewart was] in denial of the idea that he had a drug problem"). In any event, on the evidence the Tribunal concluded that to "some degree" Stewart may have been in denial.


On my reading of the evidence however Stewart only had capacity to control his drug use. Equally on the evidence, Stewart did not know he was an 'individual with a disability'. On the evidence, before the accident he was simply an individual who used drugs. The ameliorative provisions relied on by the employer do little if anything for such an individual. The Policy protects from discipline or involuntary termination only those individuals who have a 'dependency or addiction' and who seek treatment before an accident. It does not apply to drug users who only later come to realize they were addicted to drugs.

Immediately after providing this quote in its decision, the Court of Appeal noted that the chambers judge did not factor into the decision the employer's practice of allowing employees a chance to return to work after rehabilitation or treatment.

What did the Court of Appeal say on the accommodation issue?

The Court disagreed with the chambers judge on this issue (i.e., that he did not think he was dependent on cocaine – denial) essentially saying that a claim of denial might be treated as a vaccine against discipline:

The suggestion that Stewart was in 'denial' does not convert the reasonableness of the accommodation steps of Elk Valley into something else. Indeed, the opinion evidence on which the Tribunal relied suggests that to accede under the Policy to the possibility of denial would not even address the problem of denial itself. Creating a situation where, post-incident, claims of denial might be treated as a potential vaccine against discipline hardly advances the effort to create and maintain a safe workplace.

There is a convolution of logic in using 'denial' as a basis for excusing the employee who needs accommodation from bringing that up to the employer as other persons are expected to do. The movement towards treating drug addiction or dependency as a physical disability was grounded in the recognition that there were stereotypical attitudes about the capacity of people to control their addictions. Denial, indeed, is arguably part of that phenomenon. To use denial as a basis for excusing the need to make the employer aware of the need for accommodation would in a sense give drug addiction or dependency a sort of 'most favoured nation' status for an employee subject to that form of disability. There are many forms of disability. None should be trivialized.

The appellant's approach amounts to a suggestion that even an employee in a highly safety sensitive position who knows precisely what he is doing can unilaterally and in a secretive manner disregard the profound safety obligations of his employment not only to the employer but to his co-workers. The absolution for doing so is said to arise from error or misconception on the part of that employee – namely denial. In our view, legitimizing such a subjective manner of defining one's safety-related employment duties in hazardous work environments loses touch with the test in Meiorin, and with the objectives of anti-discrimination laws.

What is the takeaway?

Substance addiction has been protected human rights characteristic for many years in Canadian human rights law. This area has seen a number of key decisions from the Supreme Court of Canada and appeal courts across Canada. With those decisions, employers and employees have become educated on the disability (e.g., recreational use v. addiction, testing, disciplinary consequences, etc.), but this decision appears to be the first to venture into characteristics of addiction such as enabling and denial in employer policies – in particular, whether substituting a lesser penalty amounts to enabling the addiction, or whether the concept of denial should be considered when an employee fails to disclose a substance use problem. The decision suggests that a policy that provides for alternative discipline and/or that accommodates employees who self-disclose substance abuse issues in safety sensitive work environments are acceptable.

Readers should be aware that there is a lengthy dissent in this decision and the possibility that these issues may be discussed further by the Supreme Court of Canada

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Lisa Gallivan
Alison Strachan
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of

To Use you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions