Canadian Work Disability Accommodation Law Resources
Digital Portal [Search Engine] - Search by one filter at a time

Discusses when addiction is not considered prima facia discrimination by the SCC and the descenting opinions. Reviews the SCC decision on when a zero-tolerance policy will be upheld despite the presence of an addiction.

Official Abstract: "The focus of this article is mental health and workplace disability discrimination in the UK. The article will look at a number of ways that disability discrimination in the UK could be developed to the advantage of people with mental health problems, through an examination of the legislation and through case analysis.The issues that are raised by disability discrimination on the ground of mental health are pertinent to all legal systems that have enacted laws to try and protect people suffering from disability discrimination. Some comparisons are made with Canadian law, s in Canada there appears to be a more open- textured "human rights" approach to disability discrimination. In addition to making suggestions for further developments in UK law, this article suggests that the Canadian approach is the "better" way, as it concerns itself more with a human rights perspective and a social model of disability rather than a medical model." 

A brief discussion of pre-employment drug testing. Discusses the law on when a drug dependency is required to be accommodated, the justification for drug testing, and the workplace health and safety plans to support testing. It discusses when pre-employment, pre-access, random drug testing and zero tolerance policies are discriminatory. It discusses the implications of medical cannabis and recreational use. Discusses a decision where the lack of cannabis testing that could determine impairment was found to be undue hardship. Suggests zero tolerance policies are likely to be upheld in limited high risk situations. Discusses the balancing necessary between employee privacy and workplace safety. 

The employee needs to communicate more than a desire to return to work. The employee must demonstrate ability to return to work to trigger the duty to accommodate. The court found that the employer was correct to treat the relationship as being frustrated, when the employee did not supply twice requested medical information.