The British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal has dismissed a discrimination complaint against Horizon North Logistics, concluding that the company’s decision to terminate an employee after an incident involving substance use did not violate the Human Rights Code.
The complaint, filed by a former Lodge Accommodations Manager for Horizon, alleged that his termination in 2020 was the result of discrimination related to his mental health disabilities.
The manager, R.B., argued that Horizon should have been aware of his struggles with mental health and substance use and either inquired about his condition or accommodated him. The Tribunal, however, ruled that he had no reasonable prospect of proving a discriminatory connection between his termination and his mental disabilities.
The decision focused on whether there was enough evidence to support R.B.’s claim that his termination was discriminatory. “This decision is not about whether the termination was fair or right,” Cousineau wrote. “It is only about whether (R.B.) has no reasonable prospect of proving a discriminatory connection between his termination and a disability.”
Visit to a local pub
R.B., who had worked for Horizon since 2014 and rose from a sandwich maker to manager of one of the company’s flagship locations, said he was struggling with mental health issues in early 2020. On the night of Feb. 15, 2020, R.B., while on call as the Lodge Accommodations Manager, left the Lodge to drink with a co-worker at a local pub. He returned to work the next morning impaired by alcohol and an illegal substance, which led to his immediate suspension and eventual termination.
R.B.’s complaint centred on two arguments: that Horizon treated him more harshly than other employees due to his mental disabilities, and that the company failed to inquire whether his conduct was related to his disability before taking disciplinary action. He contended that Horizon knew or should have known about his mental health struggles, referencing a significant incident in 2018 that led to a two-month disability leave. He also pointed to his excessive work hours and expressed concerns about the toll the job was taking on his mental health in the months leading up to his termination.
Horizon moved to dismiss the complaint under section 27(1)(c) of the Human Rights Code, which allows the Tribunal to dismiss a complaint that has “no reasonable prospect of success.” Horizon argued that R.B. never informed his supervisors about his mental health struggles before the incident in February 2020 and that his termination was solely based on his conduct of leaving the Lodge, becoming impaired while on call, and reporting for work under the influence of alcohol and drugs.
Safety-sensitive position
The Tribunal found that Horizon was likely to prove that the termination was based on non-discriminatory reasons, specifically R.B.’s failure to adhere to company policies prohibiting employees in safety-sensitive positions from being under the influence while on duty. His position as Lodge Accommodations Manager, which required him to oversee emergency responses, was deemed safety-sensitive under Horizon’s Substance Abuse Program, which allows for termination when an employee’s blood alcohol content exceeds 0.04. Bains’ level was measured at 0.051.
The Tribunal rejected R.B.’s claims of differential treatment, noting that while other employees had engaged in similar conduct, their positions were not considered safety-sensitive. The Tribunal concluded that the circumstances of R.B.’s conduct were not analogous to those of other employees he identified as receiving more lenient treatment.
“There is no direct evidence that Horizon targeted Mr. Bains for termination because of his mental disabilities,” the Tribunal stated, adding that the evidence did not support an inference of discrimination. Horizon classified his position as safety-sensitive, and the company’s decision to terminate him fell within the scope of its workplace policies.
The Tribunal also dismissed Bains’ argument that his mental health issues should have triggered an accommodation process. While R.B. disclosed his struggles with anxiety and depression after the incident, he had not provided any evidence connecting his decision to leave the Lodge, drink, and consume drugs to his mental disabilities.
The Tribunal does not assume a person with mental health issues will violate workplace rules because of their condition, it said.
In conclusion, the Tribunal determined that the human rights complaint had “no reasonable prospect of success” and dismissed it in its entirety under section 27(1)(c) of the Human Rights Code.
For more information, see Bains v. Horizon North Logistics Inc., 2024 BCHRT 247.
