HR Legislation Unit 1: Case Analysis: Stewart v. Elk Valley Coal Corp.

This case analysis focuses on "Stewart v. Elk Valley Coal Corp., 2017 SCC 30," examining the legal arguments surrounding wrongful dismissal and discrimination within the context of HR legislation. The case involves an employee, Stewart, who was terminated after an accident and a positive drug test, leading to a dispute over prima facie discrimination. The analysis highlights the legal frameworks used, including the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and discusses the employer's responsibilities in providing accommodations for employees with substance abuse issues. The Supreme Court's judgment emphasized the importance of reasonable accommodations and the impact of workplace policies on employees' rights, ultimately leading to the employee's potential reinstatement. Furthermore, the analysis includes brief case summaries of Kelly v. American Airlines Inc. et al. and Northwood v. Bristol Aerospace Limited to offer a broader understanding of employment law principles. The document also references relevant legal sources like canlii.org and laws.justice.gc.ca.

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.

3
HR LEGISLATION UNIT 1
Impact
According to the judgment of Supreme Court, the employer (plaintiff) did not provide the
employee (defendant), any accommodations for convenience of the employee, the
accommodations that were provide didn’t sufficiently align with the employee circumstances.
The defendant was unaware of his dependence on drugs, for which he was unable to comply with
the accommodations provided by the employer (laws.justice.gc.ca, 2020). This lead to affect the
employer of Elk Valley, to provide chances for re applying in his company, and he was told to
make lenient decisions or accommodations which can be accessed by his employees, and there
should be no discrimination. The defendant was also made clear that substance abuse is not
acceptable in workplace if there is a presence of policy imposed by the employer. As he was
unknown of his dependence, he was excused and allowed him to reapply to the company.
Changes in policy
The employer was instructed to provide adequate accommodation, which will align with the
circumstances of the employee and provide accessible accommodation. He had to change his
pattern of policies and make them more available, detailed, accessible and aligning to every
individual circumstances.
Post 1:
Kelly v. American Airlines Inc. et al.

4
HR LEGISLATION UNIT 1
32 O.R. (2d) 626
ONTARIO HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
BOLAND J.
8TH MAY 1981.
Considering the force that have been given here it is obvious that the selected case and the way
of approach of the post is authentic and adequate. Aspataal post the main issue between two
parties and the case named as Kelly v. American Airlines Inc. et al. 32 O.R. (2d) 626. the post
highlighted all the important sites of the things which initiated the issue between two parties. In
this case the plaintiff stated that wrongfully dismissed by American airline and they have made
some slanderous remarks on the person. Considering the issues associated with wrongful
dismissal the post has provided significant knowledge. According to the plantiff the comments
that have been made on him are false and affected his career and that is why he has asked for a
legal hearing against American airline. American airline ask to strikethrough some of the the
aspects of the case but the court took a different decision. In this regard the post has significantly
identified the considered aspects of the Employment Equity Act (S.C. 1995, c. 44) and analysed
them in a profecient manner. On the other hand the post considered the importance of Delmotte
v. John Labatt Ltd. et al. (1978) which is one of the important factors. The post has considered
valuable information about the case and it has considered authentic sources for this.
Post 2:

5
HR LEGISLATION UNIT 1
Northwood v. Bristol Aerospace Limited, 2004 MBQB 66 (CanLII)
COURT OF QUEEN’S BENCH OF MANITOBA
The case shown that there is a possibility of being terminated from an organization where a
person has worked for so many years. It is seen that the employee Northwood I was working in
the organization for almost 23 years and after that, he got terminated without showing any kind
of reasons. The performance was good and he was promoted as well before the termination. It is
a breach of contract and according to the judges, the contract of employment work in a different
manner. In this case, the post states that the person was wrongfully terminated and he should
have been compensated for this. It is also an important factor to consider that in the age of 48
getting a new job is almost impossible. Compensating the person is one of the most important
duties of the authority. Wallace v. United Grain Growers Ltd., 1997 CanLII 332 (SCC), [1997] 3
S.C.R. 701, has been considered for the post and it states that this kind of dismissal is is entirely
against the employment contract. Therefore from the given context it can be say that the post has
provided a professional knowledge about the case and it has highlighted the necessary factors
that should have been considered by any reader. The post has provided significant knowledge
about the wrongful dismissal and it is an essential factor highlighting various facets of the case.
References
canlii.org (2020). Retrieved 19 April 2020, from
https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2017/2017scc30/2017scc30.html?
autocompleteStr=2017%20SCC%2030&autocompletePos=1

6
HR LEGISLATION UNIT 1
canlii.org, 2020. Retrieved 19 April 2020, from
https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/1981/1981canlii1651/1981canlii1651.html?
searchUrlHash=AAAAAQAUIndyb25nZnVsIGRpc21pc3NhbCIAAAAAAQ&resultIndex=41
laws.justice.gc.ca (2020). Retrieved 19 April 2020, from https://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/
Eissenstat, K. (2015). Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics: The Case to Require Practical
Significance to Establish a Prima Facie Case of Disparate Impact Discrimination. Okla. L.
Rev., 68, 641.