Driving While Intoxicated At Work: Serious Misconduct Versus The Duty To Accommodate

In a recent decision,¹ the Superior Court (the “Court”) set aside an arbitration award after finding that a transport company (the “Employer”) had lawfully dismissed a commercial freight truck driver for driving while intoxicated and causing a serious accident. In the Court’s view, despite the driver’s disability due to alcohol addiction, her dismissal did not breach the Employer’s duty to provide reasonable accommodation.

Background

On June 30, 2022, a commercial truck driver (the “Complainant”), who was a union representative with 24 years of service with the Employer, was involved in a traffic accident in the United States while driving a loaded 53-foot tractor-trailer. During her working hours preceding the accident, she consumed between 9 and 12 beers. When tested, her blood alcohol concentration measured 0.18 mg per 100 mL of blood, which was more than twice the legal limit. Although no one was injured, the accident caused extensive damage to the vehicle and raised serious concerns about the safety of those using the roads.

In the days following the accident, the driver provided the Employer with a medical certificate indicating an alcohol use disorder.

Despite the certificate, the Employer maintained its position and informed the driver that her employment was terminated based on the zero-tolerance clause in the collective agreement, under which the consumption of any alcohol while driving would result in automatic dismissal.

The Union filed a grievance to contest this decision, arguing that the Complainant’s alcohol addiction constituted a disability protected under section 10 of the Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms² (the “Québec Charter”). It also alleged that the Employer had failed to take steps to provide reasonable accommodation before terminating her employment.

Arbitration Award³

While the Arbitrator found that the allegations against the Complainant amounted to serious misconduct, it concluded that automatically applying the dismissal clause in the collective agreement was inappropriate given the circumstances.

Given that alcoholism is a disability protected under section 10 of the Québec Charter, the Arbitrator concluded that the Employer failed to meet its duty to reasonably accommodate by neither considering the Complainant’s medical certificate nor considering possible accommodation measures.

As a result, the Arbitrator set aside the dismissal and ordered the Complainant’s reinstatement, directing the parties to engage in a reasonable accommodation process taking her disability into account.

Superior Court Ruling⁴

On January 21, 2026, the Court granted the Employer’s application for judicial review and set aside the arbitration award, concluding that it was unreasonable. Although alcoholism is recognized as a disability protected under the Québec Charter, the Court found that this protection did not warrant setting aside the dismissal in the circumstances of the case.

First, the Court noted the extremely serious nature of the conduct at issue, namely that the Complainant drove a commercial truck while severely intoxicated, resulting in an accident that caused significant damage to the vehicle and endangered other road users. The Court held that the zero-tolerance policy set out in the collective agreement, providing for the immediate dismissal on the date of the accident, was a justified and reasonably necessary measure in the transportation industry.

The Court also dismissed the argument that the dismissal was discriminatory. Since the prohibition against consuming alcohol while at work applies to all employees, regardless of whether they have an alcohol addiction, the Complainant failed to establish that she was treated differently. She was not dismissed due to her alcohol addiction, but rather for driving a tractor-trailer while her blood alcohol concentration was more than twice the legal limit, thereby posing a serious risk to others on the road.

The Court also pointed out that the Employer had been unaware of the Complainant’s alcohol addiction prior to the accident, as she had never disclosed it. In the Court’s view, since the addiction problem was only brought to the Employer’s attention after the serious misconduct had occurred, it was under no duty to put in place accommodation measures before reviewing the matter and dismissing the Complainant.

Takeaways

Apart from upholding the dismissal, this decision raises important legal questions that the Court of Appeal may soon have to clarify.

First, when is an employer’s duty to accommodate triggered—when the misconduct occurs or when the employee is formally dismissed? Under prevailing case law, knowledge of a disability need only exist before disciplinary action is taken. In this case, however, the Employer became aware of the Complainant’s alcohol addiction after the accident but before formally dismissing her. The Court appears to resolve this tension by holding that, pursuant to the zero-tolerance policy, the dismissal was automatic as of the date of the accident and that the formal notice of termination merely “confirmed” a decision already made. This reasoning raises a question that the Court of Appeal may be called upon to decide: where an employer becomes aware of a disability in the course of a disciplinary investigation, but prior to finalizing its decision, is it required to take that disability into account before taking disciplinary action? Moreover, how does this apply in cases where an employer has implemented a zero-tolerance policy that automatically results in discipline?

Second, to what extent does an employee’s alcohol addiction relieve them of accountability for their conduct at work? The Superior Court appears to conclude that the misconduct at issue was not the addiction per se, but rather the decision to drive a tractor-trailer after consuming alcohol—a voluntary act, undertaken with knowledge of the applicable rules and the foreseeable consequences. Finding no evidence that her addiction reduced her capacity to choose, the Court concluded that she should have been dismissed regardless of whether she was alcohol-dependent or an occasional drinker. This question nonetheless raises a broader issue that the Court of Appeal may have the opportunity to examine in greater depth: to what extent can an employee suffering from addiction be held accountable for their decisions when those decisions constitute the very misconduct at issue?

Footnotes

^{1 1641-9749 Québec inc. c April, 2026 QCCS 289.
2 Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, CQLR, c C-12.
3 Teamsters Québec, local 106 et 1641-9749 Québec inc., 2023 QCTA 304.
4 1641-9749 Québec inc. c April, 2026 QCCS 289. On March 16, 2026, the Court
of Appeal of Québec granted leave to appeal the judgment.}

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.