Canada has quite a different attitude toward workplace drug testing than we do in the U.S. The Ontario Human Rights Commission found that drug testing is unconstitutional because addiction is a disability and the disabled are an "identifiable group" protected by the Charter, the Human Rights Act and most if not all provincial human rights codes. According to the code Canadians are not allowed to "publish, issue or display, or cause to be published, issued or displayed, any statement, publication, notice, sign, symbol, emblem or other representation that
(a) indicates discrimination or an intention to discriminate against a person or a group or class of persons, or
(b) is likely to expose a person or a group or class of persons to hatred or contempt because of the race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, religion, marital status, family status, physical or mental disability, sex, sexual orientation or age of that person or that group or class of persons.
Americans used to have similar protection under our Constitution; it was called The Fourth Amendment. Unfortunately we have created numerous "drug exceptions" that make it useless.

RIGHTS AGENCY NIXES WORKPLACE DRUG TESTS

OTTAWA -- Random drug and alcohol testing of workers and pre-screening of
potential new employees have been ruled an abuse of human rights by the
federal watchdog.

A policy announced yesterday by the Canadian Human Rights Commission rules
drug or alcohol dependence are disabilities and workers with those problems
must be helped, not fired, by their boss.

"Employers, with very, very few exceptions, should not be testing
employees, or candidates for employment, for drugs," said the commission's
Catherine Barratt.

If an employer wants to know whether one of his staff uses drugs or drinks
too much on weekends, that means he "perceives the use of those substances
is going to disable them from doing their job on Monday and that's
forbidden -- that's against the law."

The new rules include a few exceptions that permit testing for impairment.

If an employer has "strong reasonable cause" -- such as an accident -- to
suspect a worker in a safety-sensitive job such as driving or flying an
airplane, is impaired, he can test the worker for alcohol in his system,
said Barratt.

But if the test is positive, the employer is responsible to "accommodate
the needs" of that worker, including providing medical testing, counselling
and even reassignment to a job that doesn't affect safety.

Exemptions also are made for cross-border trucking companies, whose drivers
haul freight into the U.S., where they may have to submit to testing before
they are licensed, she added.

But if random U.S. tests reveal a problem, the employer has the same
responsibility to help the worker.

"There needs to be support and rehabilitation and treatment that goes along
with . . . reassigning them temporarily to a position that is not
safety-sensitive," Barratt said.

The rules apply to workers in federally regulated industries, from Canada's
banks and insurers to airlines, telecommunications firms, railways, some
mining and bus companies and national media outlets.

They can also act as guidelines for companies that aren't regulated by
Ottawa, but want policies that won't contravene the law, said Barratt.

A 1999 Supreme Court of Canada ruling led the commission to broaden its policy.

Lower court rulings followed, including an Ontario decision involving an
Imperial Oil Ltd. worker who admitted to a previous drug problem.

When his admission led to control board operator Martin Entrop being
reassigned, Entrop filed a human rights complaint alleging discrimination
because of a handicap.

In 1998, the Federal Court of Canada ruled a Toronto-Dominion Bank
drug-testing policy to screen new hires was discriminatory.
__________________________________________________________________________