skip to main content

Medical Cannabis and Safety Sensitive Work

By Peter C. Straszynski

Provincial and Federal Human Rights legislation requires that an employer accommodate an employee’s medical condition to the point of “undue hardship”.

With the increasing prevalence of medically prescribed cannabis, employers are understandably concerned with the prospect of impairment at work, particularly with employees in safety sensitive roles.

In a recent decision of the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador [1] (the “Churchill” case), the Court upheld a unionized employer’s denial of employment to a labourer working on the construction of electrical towers.

The labourer suffered from pain due to osteoarthritis and Crohn’s disease for which he was prescribed medical cannabis, which prescription he reported to the employer. The employee regularly ingested 1.5 grams of dry cannabis each evening following work hours.

In assessing the risk of impairment on the job and the employer’s duty to accommodate, there were conflicting medical opinions, including one indicating that it could take up to 24 hours after use before the employee would be totally free of impairment. 

The Court found that the “possibility” of impairment, based on the medical evidence, met the threshold of undue hardship in the circumstances.  A significant consideration in coming to this conclusion was that the employer was unable to readily measure impairment from cannabis based on currently available technology and  resources, and that consequently, the inability to measure and manage that risk of harm constituted undue hardship for the employer. 

It is likely that employers will take the position, based on cases like Churchill, that the mere possibility of impairment will constitute undue hardship and therefore negate the duty to accommodate medically prescribed cannabis at work, at least in the case of safety sensitive work. 

Employers with employees prescribed to use medical cannabis will certainly look to this decision and those that follow in assessing their obligation to accommodate in their particular circumstances.

Peter Straszynski is a partner and member of the firm’s Employment Law and Cannabis Law practice Groups.

[1] International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 1620 v. Lower Churchill Transmission Construction Employers' Association Inc., 2019 N.L.S.C. 48, issued February 22, 2019

Most Recent Posts

Matt Maurer speaks to The Star about the strategies cannabis brands may have used for the lottery

Of 2,078 applications in Tuesday’s provincial lottery for the chance to apply for new pot shop licences in the GTA, five winners proposed the sa...
Aug 23, 2019

Matt Maurer speaks to Global News about the most recent cannabis retail lottery

As promised, the names of 42 applicants across Ontario who won a lottery that may allow them to open a cannabis store were announced Wednesd...
Aug 23, 2019

Tenant Lease Considerations for Cannabis Retail Stores

By Kenneth Beallor The Ontario Government has moved to the next phase of its plan to license cannabis retail stores within the province with the most ...
Aug 23, 2019