Call Us Now


Part One – CEP, Local 30 v. Irving Pulp & Paper – Supreme Court Issues Landmark Ruling on Alcohol Testing in Unionized Workplaces

Posted On: January, 21 2015


The legal status of random drug and alcohol testing in Canadian workplaces has been very unclear for some time.  It has been accepted that drug and alcohol addiction is a disability within the context of human rights law, and as such, random drug and alcohol testing programs potentially raise discrimination issues because they disproportionately affect addicts.  It has also been accepted that drug and alcohol tests are medical procedures which raise individual privacy concerns.

Much of the debate on testing has hinged on whether random drug and alcohol testing exposes drug and alcohol addicts to negative consequences in a way that would violate their rights as persons who have disabilities.  The related question is whether workplace safety can justify a violation of an employee’s privacy rights and human rights, and if so, under what circumstances?

In Ontario, the leading authority is Entrop v. Imperial Oil Limited, [2000] O.J. No. 2689 (C.A.), which was a decision of the Court of Appeal for Ontario released in 2000.  In this case, Imperial Oil had a comprehensive alcohol and drug testing policy at its two Ontario refineries.  The policy subjected employees in safety sensitive positions to ongoing random testing; provided for mandatory testing for all new job candidates as a condition of employment; and imposed random testing for alcohol and specific drugs for all employees.  The Court of Appeal concluded that the policy was discriminatory because it exposed addicts to adverse consequences and was not proven to be a bona fide occupational requirement (a “BFOR”).

However, the Alberta Court of Appeal found in 2007 that a random drug and alcohol testing policy was permissible in pre-employment screening.  In Alberta (Human Rights Commission) v. Kellogg, Brown & Root, 2007 ABCA 426, the Court of Appeal held that the purpose of drug testing was to ensure safety, not to single out addicts, or to presumptively label every worker as an addict or potential addict.  In its reasons, the Alberta Court of Appeal explicitly stated that it was choosing not to follow the Ontario Court of Appeal’s decision in Entrop.  Kellogg, Brown & Root’s testing program was found to be acceptable.

To add to the confusion, the New Brunswick Court of Appeal had ruled in 2011 that a random alcohol testing program in a New Brunswick pulp and paper mill was permissible.  An Arbitration Board had ruled the testing program illegal, because even though the workplace was dangerous, the employer was not able to prove that there was an actual alcohol problem in its facility sufficient to qualify the program as a BFOR.  The Court of Appeal disagreed with the Arbitration Board, finding that an employer was entitled to implement random alcohol testing in any workplace that was “inherently dangerous” without additionally being required to prove an actually existing alcohol problem in the workplace:  Syndicat canadien des communications, de l’énergie et du papier, section locale 30 c. Les Pâtes et Papier Irving, Limitée, 2011 NBCA 58.

Although in this particular case the New Brunswick Court of Appeal was concerned with a unionized workplace, the Court of Appeal observed that the same “inherently dangerous” test should apply to non-unionized workplaces as the threshold test to justify a random alcohol testing policy.

To date, the conflicting jurisprudence has made it difficult for employers to develop drug and alcohol policies.  It has been particularly difficult for those employers with operations across Canada, or those with both unionized and non-unionized workforces.

The Supreme Court’s 2013 decision in the appeal of the Irving Pulp and Paper case clarified some issues, but left a great deal of ambiguity to be resolved in future cases.


Contact Us



  • Rating: 5 Lawyer Toronto - 5 Star Reviews
    Pinto James Reviewed by SB

    "I just wanted to let you know how happy I am with the outcome and how very grateful I am for the guidance and support that you and your team provided.
  • Rating: 5 Lawyer Toronto - 5 Star Reviews
    Pinto James Reviewed by Google user

    "Patrick James is really a great lawyer who is smart and great to deal with. He's been our litigation counsel for over 5 years on several different matters. Patrick recently gave our company great strategic advice that resulted in a big commercial litigation win for our company. He's fierce, tenacious, and really cares about getting the best outcome for his clients."
  • Rating: 5 Lawyer Toronto - 5 Star Reviews
    Pinto James Reviewed by Google user

    "Patrick is a very good lawyer. He recently successfully defended a lawsuit against my company and has pursued several litigation claims for us in the past. All claims settled input favour. Mr. James is smart and quickly gives you great strategic advice. Patrick has been a real asset to our business."
  • Rating: 5 Lawyer Toronto - 5 Star Reviews
    Pinto James Reviewed by Sandra L.

    "Andrew Wray and Patrick James recently helped settle a difficult situation for me and my family. The results were exactly what we were hoping for. They are honest, strategic and will provide you with the best advice for you and your financial situation. I highly recommend them to everyone I know."
  • Rating: 5 Lawyer Toronto - 5 Star Reviews
    Pinto James Reviewed by Mark C.

    "Their team is highly focused and incredibly professional - from our experience it would be difficult not to believe that Pinto Wray James are one of Ontario's leading Firms in Labor and Employment law. The mindful client care and complete understanding of the case eased fears and the stress that comes with any legal dispute. Expect to find high level smartly crafted legal solutions at Pinto Wray James LLP - couldn't recommend more."
  • Rating: 5 Lawyer Toronto - 5 Star Reviews
    Pinto James Reviewed by Sherry C.

    "Patrick is knowledgeable, strategic, supportive, and patient. His guidance and advice helped me to maintain focus and to keep things in perspective. His experience and keen perception provides him with an edge that allows him to assess the situation, the people involved, and to offer a strategic resolution that works best for all involved. If you ever require legal advice and assistance, I highly recommend him and his team. They will be there 100% for you."
  • Rating: 5 Lawyer Toronto - 5 Star Reviews
    Pinto James Reviewed by Christian V.

    "Patrick is a fearless advocate for diverse clients. His strategic approach, and his empathy, are what set him apart as a litigator, and champion of the underdog."
  • Rating: 5 Lawyer Toronto - 5 Star Reviews
    Pinto James Reviewed by A Google User

    "I have no hesitation recommending Andrew Wray of Pinto Wray James LLP. He provided me with legal advice regarding an employment law issue and his council was practical and honest. Andrew's approach is very much one of blending legal excellence with good common sense. An excellent lawyer!"
  • Rating: 5 Lawyer Toronto - 5 Star Reviews
    Pinto James Reviewed by Larry S.

    "Patrick listens to his clients and shows compassion, empathy and professionalism. He cares deeply that the individual that has been wrongfully terminated gets the best judgment available to him. I would not hesitate in recommending him to friends or family."