HR Legislation Unit 1 Case Analysis 2022

Running head: HR LEGISLATION UNIT 1
HR LEGISLATION UNIT 1
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

1
HR LEGISLATION UNIT 1
Case Analysis:
“Stewart v. Elk Valley Coal Corp., 2017 SCC 30 (CanLII), [2017] 1 SCR 591”
Between:
Elk Valley Coal Corp: Plaintiff
Stewart: Defendant
Supreme Court of Canada
Appeal Made: December 9, 2016
Judgment Rendered: June 15, 2017
File Number: 36636
The motion
The plaintiff pursued to the Court of Canada that the employee Stewart violated the
principles, and was found drugged at the cite resulting in an accident, therefore his employment
was terminated (canlii.org, 2020)
The action
The defender requested to the Court of Canada that the case must be dismissed as the
termination of his employment was done on the grounds of “prima facie” discrimination, which
was clearly proven. According to the defender, he was terminated on his drug abuse, which is a
interference in his human rights, and is a case of wrongful dismissal, according to prima facie
discrimination.
Background

2
HR LEGISLATION UNIT 1
Steward the defendant worked in a mine of Elk Valley Coal Corporation, his primary
work was of a loader. As the activities of the mine were dangerous, and the employer had issued
policies regarding the safety measures of mine work. One of the laws was prohibition of drug
usage while working in the minefields. The policy also imposed the acceptance of dependency
on any kind of drugs, before starting their work. Therefore, is anyone does not disclose any facts
kike that, and are caught in any incident while positive for dependency in drug, their
employment will be terminated.
Similar to this situation, Stewart was a person who indulged in cocaine in weekends,
which were generally his off days. He deliberately hid the fact that he was on cocaine’s and his
loader involved an accident and Stewart was tested positive, in response to this situation he was
terminated under the act s. 7(1), of Alberta, “Human Rights, Citizenship and Multiculturalism
Act ”. In explanation, it was stated that the termination was due to his breaching of act, but not
his addiction.
The law
The law that was used in case of this hearing was s. 7 Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom,
under which drug dependent persons can be judged according to their level of violation, and the
harm caused. Therefore, the evidence presented in front of the Court was stated as wrong, after
going through a prima facie discrimination (Eissenstat 2015). The employer stated that
termination was done on the grounds of policy, but not depending on his addiction. The evidence
provided showed termination done on grounds of his dependency on addiction. Therefore, it was
found that the defendant unaware of his disability or dependency of drugs. Therefore, the
employer can reapply to his post due to dismissal on the grounds of prima facie discrimination.