Offices in Ottawa and Perth
(613) 722-1500

CONTACT US (613) 722-1500

Drugs and Alcohol at Work – Addiction and Accommodation

Drugs and Alcohol at Work – Addiction and Accommodation

Mann Lawyers

Posted August 9, 2018

Setting Expectations

Rare is the workplace that permits consumption of alcohol during work hours, aside from special occasions or a client lunch.   Indeed, most workplaces have rules that require employees to refrain from consuming alcohol or illicit drugs while working or from attending at work under the influence.

The upcoming legalization of recreational marijuana means that most employers will wish to and will be justified in prohibiting recreational marijuana use or impairment at work in the same way that alcohol, although legalized, is typically prohibited.

The obvious rationale is that these substances may impact job performance, and, worse, jeopardize safety of the employee and others. Possessing illegal substances can of course have criminal consequences.

Medical marijuana should not be outright banned, but rather should be treated in much the same way as other prescription drugs.  That is, a case by case determination should be made about its impact on work performance and safety.  An employer is required to accommodate that need to the point of undue hardship and can do so by obtaining necessary medical information from an employee’s physician such as whether or not the employee will experience any impairment at work and, if so, what limitations that creates in the context of his or her specific role.  The employer will be in a position to request information on prognosis and work with the employee to create either a permanent or temporary accommodation of that need. Safety is a paramount consideration in this exercise.   The exercise would be the same if an employee was prescribed a medication that caused drowsiness, for instance.

Enforcing Rules

Enforcing rules on both legal and illegal substances at work is not straightforward as an employer must carefully consider its obligations under Ontario’s Human Rights Code before taking action.  If there is suspicion that an employee is struggling with addiction which is impacting work, or if the employee advises that is the case, it is then appropriate to seek further information from that employee’s doctor on whether or not he or she is able to perform work duties. Addiction is considered a disability under the Code.  An employer may be obligated to extend a leave of absence without pay while an employee seeks treatment or to temporarily re-assign an employee to a non-safety sensitive role, for instance, depending on circumstances.

While an addicted employee should not be disciplined for merely having an addiction and being in breach of a policy that prohibits impairment at work, it is appropriate for an employer to set out guidelines to govern the relationship, particularly for a recovered employee’s return to work.  It is an important exercise, prior to bringing an employee back to work after rehabilitation, to determine whether there are any ongoing limitations and needs.

Particularly in safety sensitive positions, it is acceptable to have a policy upfront that requires disclosure of an addiction or impairment prior to work performance.  The Supreme Court of Canada upheld a dismissal for breach of such a policy on that basis in Stewart v. Elk Valley Coal Corp. 2017 SCC 30 last year.  Had the employee disclosed his addiction, as required, the employer would not have been in a position to dismiss. The failure to do so created significant risk.

An employer’s obligations to an addicted employee do not extend forever, but given the nature of addiction, relapses are possible, even if the employee is following a recommended treatment plan. Each instance must be treated on a case by case basis with necessary medical input.

An employee struggling with addiction at work typically has greater job protection and likelihood of obtaining necessary time and resources by being forthright with an employer.  This is a far more productive approach than letting an accident happen first or than getting fired for breach of a policy because there is no knowledge of an addiction or other disability in the first place.

This blog post was written by Alayna Miller, a member of the Employment team.  She can be reached at 613-369-0374 or at

More Resources

Blog |
Employment, Labour, and Human Rights, Commercial Litigation


Posted May 23, 2023

Both in my commercial and employment litigation practice, I encounter Ontario business owners faced with serious charges laid against them under the Provincial Offences Act[...]
Blog |
Family Law


Posted May 18, 2023

The recent Supreme Court of Canada decision in Anderson v. Anderson, 2023 SCC 13, provides guidance on domestic contracts and the enforceability of an informal[...]
Blog |
Environmental Law


Posted May 16, 2023

When many people think of contaminated sites, they think of the usual suspects such as industrial properties and gas stations.  They may not think of[...]
Blog |
Business Law


Posted May 9, 2023

Often business owners reach a point where they are considering the sale of their business either through the sale of shares or the sale of[...]
Blog |
Family Law


Posted May 2, 2023

Overview of Tort Claims in Family Matters Tort claims can be made in family law matters, so as to prevent a multiplicity of proceedings and[...]
Blog |
Employment, Labour, and Human Rights


Posted April 25, 2023

In a case that recently was decided from the Court of Appeal of Ontario called Celestini v Shoplogix Inc., 2023 ONCA 131, the Court had[...]

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

"*" indicates required fields

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.