Posted by Joanna Alexander
 
 
Crystal Norbeck is a partner at Gerrand Rath Johnson, who practices labour and employment law. She spoke about marijuana in the work place.
 
Crystal reported that despite widespread concern over the immediate effect of the legalization of marijuana there has been no dramatic increase in negative societal outcomes due to marijuana use.  In Regina, the use of Crystal Meth remains the most serious drug issue.
 
For work places with no safety related issues, the introduction of marijuana has not changed the rules of the workplace a lot.  A worker cannot come to the workplace impaired.  Normal/expected employer reactions to impairment remain the same.  For example, reprimand, sending home for the day etc.
 
For work places that do have safety related issues the question of testing arises.
   - Ad hoc testing is generally not accepted by the courts.
   - Testing following a drug related incident at work can be allowed
   - Testing as part of an established treatment plan can also be allowed.
 
The active impairment element of marijuana is THC.
 
There is no current set limit (like .08 for alcohol) for THC.  As a result, police officers or employers or co employees must judge physical impairment by physical conduct/behavior.
 
There are Drug Recognition Experts (DREs) being trained to judge impairment. These DREs are trained to determine what type of drug may have been ingested by the physical symptoms being displayed.  How the eyes react is apparently important.
 
An employer wishing to organize around marijuana use should establish a full written policy dealing with the issues.  For example, what process to determine impairment, what process to deal with incident response, how will medical marijuana be allowed, where and how can medical marijuana be ingested, when will doctor reports be required etc.
 
If an employee is a recreational user of marijuana but is regularly abusing/ignoring the work place rules the termination of employment can be an ultimate response.  If however the employee is addicted then the options of the employer are more restricted as addiction is a medical condition under the Human Rights legislation and termination of employment much more restricted and allowed only after an appropriate period of attempted accommodation.