Stewart v Elk Valley Coal Corp., 2017 SCC 30

This article discusses the case of Stewart v Elk Valley Coal Corp., 2017 SCC 30, which dealt with drug addiction, workplace discrimination, and human rights laws. The article provides an overview of the facts, issues, and decision in the case, as well as its implications for safety in the workplace.

1
Stewart v Elk Valley Coal Corp., 2017 SCC 30.
Student’s Name
Course
Professor’s Name
University
Date

2
Stewart v Elk Valley Coal Corp., 2017 SCC 30.
Area of Law: Drug Addiction, workplaces discrimination and Human right laws
Every individual has the rights to life, freedom, and security of person. This is the
universal declaration under Human rights laws. Frequent users of drugs often have their
safeguard of person and bodily integrity violated. In most states in Canada, possessing drugs
is a criminal offence. This rule criminalises persons using drugs themselves and to some
extent, is illegal to have drugs in the bloodstream. In Canada, people who use drugs are
inherently vulnerable to discrimination at their workplaces or can even be subject to invasive
searches, and being discharged.
The majority of court decisions do not often change the framework of finding
discrimination. This implies that a complainant ought to show there have traits that are
safeguarded under the relevant Human rights code. They should further show that they have
experienced an adverse impact and that the safeguarded traits were a key factor in this form
of treatment. As a result, Canada has refused to raise the bar for the finding of discriminatory
frameworks by requiring the complainant to prove that the treatment was stereotypical or the
complainant’s safeguarded characteristics were violated or there were causal factors in the
adverse treatment. They are welcome findings as they make sure that the applicants are not
placed on an even greater onus in order to establish discrimination.
Facts
Stewart was a coal worker, driving a loader. He had been working for the company
for over ten years and in that period there was little controversy on safety issues. Mining
works are known to be the most dangerous occupations of all, with a significant risk of big
injuries or even death compared to other occupations. The Mining Company that employed
Stewart had already implemented an "Alcohol, Illegal Drugs and Medication Policy". The

3
policy established zero tolerance regulations on “illegal drugs.” This implied that any
employee could be terminated if found using any form of illegal drugs. However, the policy
made exceptions whereby an employee could provide disclosure statement before
employment regarding any dependence on certain drugs and would benefit from
rehabilitation in case of substance-related conducts. Instead of being dismissed, such an
employee could be treated and come back to his job. This is only applicable to employees
who had self-identified a dependent of drugs before the incident.
Stewart understood this policy, which was implemented five months prior to the
incident. He didn’t make any disclosure to his employer that he had a cocaine addiction,
despite the fact that he often used the drug on his day offs. The tribunal agreed that, at the
time of the implementation, he was not aware of his addiction. One day, during his long shift,
Stewart was involved in an accident while operating his vehicle. However, no one was
injured in the incident and the vehicle had minimal damages. But the employer demanded
that he had to undergo a drug test. Once the result came out, Stewart was found positive for
cocaine use which was against the policy.
Issue
To determine whether policies to self-report drug use can be a tool for the dismissal of
an employee or drug user who have self-reported must comply with the set policies.

4
Decision
The majority of the Supreme Court judges affirmed the rights of employees to
consider the necessary measure that would prevent workplace accidents by observing the set
alcohol and drug policies. It was also affirmed that Stewart was supposed to self-disclose any
substance use issues before workplace incident and thus he was right to impose disciplinary
measures for failure to comply. Notably, employers don’t have to give employee multiple
chances to comply with workplace policies even if they suffer from any form of disability.
This implies that having any disability while at the same time being subject to workplace
policy cannot be considered as discrimination. Since the expert evidence proved that Stewart
had the capacity to control his behavior, the employer was right to impose disciplinary
measure on him. In a broader perspective, the decision in Stewart v. Elk Valley recognised the
unique nature of safety-sensitive occupations and the fundamental requirement for rules that
would deter the use of drugs in workplaces. Employers can impose various disciplinary
measures for the breach of the imposed policies. The decisions in the case reaffirmed that
significance of considering safety in workplaces.

5
References
Collins, D. (2012). Business ethics: How to design and manage ethical organizations.
Hoboken^ eNJ NJ: Wiley.
Stewart v Elk Valley Coal Corp., 2017 SCC 30.