This publication was featured in Le Transporteur, a magazine by the Bus Carriers Federation.
Zero tolerance policies for drunk driving are standard in the heavy vehicle transportation industry. When a driver decides to consume alcohol and get behind the wheel, public safety concerns generally justify the imposition of the ultimate penalty under labor law: dismissal. But what happens when a driver caught drinking and driving tells their employer that they suffer from alcoholism, a condition recognized as an illness when supported by medical evidence? Can the driver avoid dismissal and require their employer to provide various accommodations to enable them to cope with their alcoholism and continue their employment? In a highly anticipated decision, the Superior Court recently recognized that alcoholism cannot be invoked to escape the application of zero-tolerance policies for drunk driving in the heavy vehicle transportation industry.
The arbitration award1
In 2023, a grievance arbitrator overturned the dismissal of a truck driver who was arrested for drunk driving, with a blood alcohol level more than twice the legal limit, after consuming at least nine beers and causing a traffic accident. She was transporting a loaded 53-foot trailer in the United States at the time. A few days after the accident, the driver gave her employer a medical note mentioning an alcohol-related disorder. The employer nevertheless upheld its decision to notify the driver of her dismissal for violating the zero-tolerance policy, which provided for automatic dismissal in the event of drinking and driving. However, the grievance arbitrator overturned the dismissal and ordered the driver's reinstatement, ruling that the employer should instead accommodate her given her alcoholism, which was recognized as a medical condition.
The Superior Court's ruling2
On January 21, the Superior Court granted the employer's application for judicial review, declaring that the arbitrator had rendered an unreasonable decision and reinstating the driver's dismissal.
The Superior Court first confirmed the legality of the zero-tolerance policies implemented by employers, emphasizing that they are the norm in the trucking industry. It also specified that a worker cannot invoke an alcohol dependency disorder after violating such a policy, since the serious misconduct lies in the very act of impaired driving. Heavy vehicle drivers suffering from alcoholism have health and safety responsibilities. They must be proactive in reporting such a condition to their employer before an accident occurs.
Although alcohol addiction is a serious issue, the argument of discrimination based on disability within the meaning of the Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms was dismissed.
The dismissal did not punish the state of addiction itself, but rather a serious disciplinary offense that would have resulted in the same consequence for any other worker in comparable circumstances, whether due to an addiction problem or occasional consumption. The zero-tolerance policy on drinking and driving is applied uniformly to all drivers: the worker was therefore not treated differently because of her condition, but because she violated a rule that is essential to public safety.
The Superior Court reiterated the importance of protecting the public in the heavy vehicle transportation industry, an aspect that the arbitrator seemed to have overlooked. The driver was aware of the risk she posed by driving while intoxicated. Despite her alcoholism, there was no evidence that she was incapable of making choices about her alcohol consumption.
This landmark decision by the Superior Court sends a strong message about protecting the public in the heavy vehicle transportation industry. Recognizing the legality of zero-tolerance policies on drinking and driving, the Court also emphasizes that alcoholism cannot be used as a defense to avoid the strict application of such policies. All drivers have a responsibility not to drink and drive. Drivers who suffer from alcoholism cannot invoke this condition to excuse their violation of a zero-tolerance policy.
- Teamsters Québec, Local 106 and 1641-9749 Québec Inc., 2023 QCTA 304.
- 1641-9749 Québec Inc. and Teamsters Québec, Local 106, Superior Court, January 21, 2026, Decision not published at the time of writing.
