By Julius Melnitzer | September 8, 2024
The Court of King’s Bench of Alberta has ruled that employees who suggest an alternative to an employer’s accommodation for substance abuse treatment must provide evidence that their proposal is an effective alternative to the employer’s recommendation.
“The decision confirms that an employee doesn’t get to dictate what form accommodation must take,” says Vicki Giles, an employment and labour partner at McLennan Ross LLP and who wasn’t involved in the case.
Rather, the decision reinforces an employee’s obligation to “participate actively” in the accommodation process, says Loretta Bouwmeester, a workplace law partner at Mathews Dinsdale & Clark LLP and who was also not involved in the case.
“In so doing, the decision adds a sense of certainty in the highly contentious arena of substance abuse because although the specific situation that gave rise to the case occurs more often than people think it does, there isn’t a great deal of jurisprudence on the issue.”
Jon Maude held a safety-sensitive job at . . . MORE
RELATED ARTICLES
Is sex addiction a disability employers must accomodate?
Mandatory coronavirus testing for unionized employees allowed: arbitrator
Arbitrator finds employer violated Ontario Human Rights Code for termination over vaccine refusal
Legal decisions on mandatory coronavirus vaccination policies favouring employers
Family-status discrimination is ‘minefield’ for employers
Julius Melnitzer is a Toronto-based legal affairs writer, ghostwriter, writing coach and media trainer. Readers can reach him at [email protected] or https://legalwriter.net/contact.