Whitford v. Agrium Inc., (2006) 410 A.R. 48 (QB)

• Judge: Sulyma, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: March 28, 2006
• Citations: (2006), 410 A.R. 48 (QB);2006 ABQB 726

Whitford v. Agrium Inc. (2006), 410 A.R. 48 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2006] A.R. TBEd. OC.046

Randall G. Whitford (plaintiff) v. Agrium Inc. (defendant)

(0303 23408; 2006 ABQB 726)

Indexed As: Whitford v. Agrium Inc.

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Edmonton

Sulyma, J.

October 3, 2006.

Summary:

The defendant relied on the plaintiff's alcoholism and absenteeism as just cause to terminate his employment after 22 years of service. The plaintiff sued for wrongful dismissal.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench allowed the action and granted judgment for the plaintiff.

Master and Servant - Topic 7525

Dismissal or discipline of employees - Grounds - General - Grounds learned after dismissal - The defendant relied on the plaintiff's alcoholism and absenteeism as just cause to terminate his employment - The plaintiff sued for wrongful dismissal - The defendant pointed to the fact that the plaintiff failed to complete an alcohol treatment program after his termination and that he continued to have episodes of drinking, necessitating medical attention - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that the post-termination evidence was not relevant - If the dismissal was wrongful, the evidence that the plaintiff continued to have problems did not render the dismissal just - Post-termination conduct was only relevant if it related to the employer's just reasons for termination at the time of the termination - See paragraphs 27 to 29.

Master and Servant - Topic 7557

Dismissal or discipline of employees - Grounds - Drunkenness or alcoholism - The plaintiff underwent treatment for alcoholism and depression and he was absent from work for most of the six month period after October 2002 - On May 1, 2003, the plaintiff's employment was terminated - The defendant relied on the plaintiff's alcoholism and absenteeism as just cause for termination - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that the defendant did not have just cause to dismiss the plaintiff - The defendant had not established that the plaintiff's alcoholism impaired his ability to fulfil his workplace duties - The plaintiff was a 22 year employee with a previously good service record and no prior record of significant absenteeism - His absences were based on diagnosed medical illnesses and were mostly approved by the defendant until April 2003 - The plaintiff was not given sufficiently clear and detailed warnings about his misconduct, was misled by approvals granting him leave, and was not told that failure to prepare a return-to-work plan could result in his dismissal - Further, he was not caught drinking on the job, other than the one occasion when he made no attempt to hide his condition, and he did not jeopardize the safety of others - See paragraphs 30 to 50.

Master and Servant - Topic 7557

Dismissal or discipline of employees - Grounds - Drunkenness or alcoholism - The plaintiff underwent treatment for alcoholism and depression and he was absent from work for most of a six month period - The plaintiff's employment was terminated - The plaintiff sued for wrongful dismissal - The defendant relied on the plaintiff's alcoholism and absenteeism as just cause for termination and it argued that those grounds raised a specific test for determining cause, being the two-part test articulated in Compagnie Minière Québec Cartier (S.C.C.) - That test mandated considering first whether the employee's ability to fulfill his workplace duties was impaired by his alcohol problem and second, whether any improvement in that respect was likely in the foreseeable future - The defendant further argued that the test obviated the need for progressive discipline or warning - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench stated that while it accepted the two-part test as relevant to whether there was just cause, it rejected the defendant's submission that there was no need for warnings when termination was for alcoholism-related absenteeism - See paragraphs 31 to 32.

Master and Servant - Topic 7557

Dismissal or discipline of employees - Grounds - Drunkenness or alcoholism - The defendant relied on the plaintiff's alcoholism and absenteeism as just cause to terminate him - The plaintiff sued for wrongful dismissal - He had been employed with the defendant for over 22 years with a previously good work record and no prior record of significant absenteeism - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench stated that "The first part of the test in Cie Minière [S.C.C.] requires the employer to establish that the employee's alcoholism impaired his ability to fulfil his workplace duties. The entire context of the employment relationship is relevant to that determination. A long-term employee who has been a good employee for a significant period of time, who has attempted to obtain treatment, and who has been off work on sanctioned sick and vacation leave absences will be in a different position than a shorter term employee who has been caught drinking on the job and who has lied about his alcohol problem. The employer's attempts to accommodate alcoholism are also relevant to this determination. The first employee has more leeway in terms of whether his ability to do the job has been impaired" - See paragraph 49.

Master and Servant - Topic 7560

Dismissal or discipline of employees - Grounds - Absenteeism or tardiness - [See all Master and Servant - Topic 7557 ].

Master and Servant - Topic 7608

Dismissal or discipline of employees - Defences - Waiver, condonation or warning of misconduct - [See first and second Master and Servant - Topic 7557 ].

Cases Noticed:

Compagnie minière Québec Cartier v. Métallurgistes unis d'Amérique, local 6869, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 1095; 183 N.R. 313, refd to. [para. 27].

Cie minière Québec Cartier v. Quebec (Grievances Arbitrator) - see Compagnie minière Québec Cartier v. Métallurgistes unis d'Amérique, local 6869.

Farber v. Compagnie Trust Royal, [1997] 1 S.C.R. 846; 210 N.R. 161, refd to. [para. 27].

Holwen v. Alberta Plywood Ltd. et al., [2005] A.R. Uned. 521; 42 C.C.E.L.(3d) 264; 2005 ABQB 464, refd to. [para. 30].

Mothersele v. Gulf Canada Resources Ltd. (2003), 333 A.R. 75; 2003 ABQB 2, refd to. [para. 30].

Dowling v. Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (2004), 192 O.A.C. 126; 246 D.L.R.(4th) 65 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused (2005), 344 N.R.192; 208 O.A.C. 395 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 30].

Port Arthur Shipbuilding Co. v. Arthurs, [1969] S.C.R. 85, refd to. [para. 30].

Alberta Union of Provincial Employees et al. v. Lethbridge Community College, [2004] 1 S.C.R. 727; 319 N.R. 201; 348 A.R. 1; 321 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 33].

Fleming v. Goode (J.F.) & Sons Stationers & Office Supplies Ltd. (1994), 132 N.S.R.(2d) 84; 376 A.P.R. 84; 3 C.C.E.L.(2d) 203 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 34].

Commission scolaire de Sept-Iles v. Morin et autres (1993), 59 Q.A.C. 194; 44 A.C.W.S.(3d) 276 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 35].

Cavell (Edith) Private Hospital and Hospital Employees' Union, Local 180, Re (1982), 6 L.A.C.(3d) 229 (B.C.), refd to. [para. 36].

Henson v. Champion Feed Services Ltd., [2005] A.R. Uned. 263; 43 Alta. L.R.(4th) 151; 2005 ABQB 215, refd to. [para. 38].

Lowery v. Calgary (City) (2002), 312 A.R. 393; 281 W.A.C. 393; 2002 ABCA 237, refd to. [para. 38].

Renaud v. Board of Education of Central Okanagan No. 23 and Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 523, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 970; 141 N.R. 185; 13 B.C.A.C. 245; 24 W.A.C. 245, refd to. [para. 39].

Central Alberta Dairy Pool v. Human Rights Commission (Alta.), [1990] 2 S.C.R. 489; 113 N.R. 161; 111 A.R. 241, refd to. [para. 39].

Cox v. Canadian National Railway Co. (1988), 84 N.S.R.(2d) 271; 213 A.P.R. 271 (T.D.), consd. [para. 42].

Chopra v. Syncrude Canada Ltd., [2003] A.R. Uned. 360; 2003 ABQB 504, dist. [para. 48].

Birch v. London Drugs Ltd., [2004] B.C.A.C. Uned. 232; 2004 BCCA 618, refd to. [para. 51].

Michaels et al. v. Red Deer College, [1976] 2 S.C.R. 324; 5 N.R. 99, refd to. [para. 51].

Wallace v. United Grain Growers Ltd., [1997] 3 S.C.R. 701; 219 N.R. 161; 123 Man.R.(2d) 1; 159 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 53].

Counsel:

D. Scott (Blair Chahley), for the plaintiff;

K.R. Nicholson (MacPherson Leslie), for the defendant.

This action was heard on March 28, 2006, before Sulyma, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Edmonton, who delivered the following judgment on October 3, 2006.