GFL loses dismissal appeal after failing to investigate cannabis test

GFL Environmental Inc. has lost an appeal over a worker’s dismissal after a positive cannabis test, leaving a $5,958.19 wage assessment in place because the company did not investigate the circumstances or consider whether firing was proportionate.

The Saskatchewan Labour Relations Board dismissed the company’s appeal in GFL Environmental Inc. v Director of Employment Standards and Daniel Parker, 2026 SKLRB 39, dated July 22, 2026. Vice-chair Patricia Warwick held that the adjudicator had used the correct legal test in finding GFL had not established just cause to dismiss Daniel Parker without the statutory termination entitlement.

The decision does not prohibit workplace drug testing or hold that a positive result can never justify dismissal. It turns on the company’s response to this incident, including an undisputed failure to investigate before treating the test as sufficient grounds for termination.

A single-incident dismissal

Parker had worked for GFL since June 2019 as an assistant operator. His employment ended on February 14, 2025. The parties agreed that this was a dismissal based on one incident, not an accumulation of misconduct, and that the assessment amount was correct if liability was upheld.

The evidence described a cannabis-positive test and GFL’s drug and alcohol policy. GFL’s witness referred to a policy provision addressing consumption within 24 hours before work and said the company treated the positive result as a violation. The witness also acknowledged that the policy required investigation of the circumstances to determine appropriate discipline, and that no such investigation took place before Parker’s dismissal.

Parker disputed the timing of consumption and said nobody at GFL questioned him about the circumstances. The board did not need to determine a new scientific timeline or make a finding that he was impaired at work. The appeal concerned whether the adjudicator had properly assessed the employer’s claim of just cause.

The Director of Employment Standards issued the wage assessment. After a November 2025 hearing, an adjudicator rejected GFL’s appeal and upheld the $5,958.19 assessment in a December 8 decision. GFL then appealed to the board on questions of law.

The company’s two challenges

GFL argued that the adjudicator had focused on the wrong provision of its policy. It said the dismissal rested on a single positive test, not specifically on cannabis consumption within the preceding 24 hours. The company also argued that the adjudicator had misapplied the test for just cause, particularly in a safety-sensitive workplace.

The board rejected the first argument because the adjudicator had to decide the case actually presented at the hearing. GFL itself had introduced evidence and arguments about the 24-hour rule. The adjudicator was entitled to consider them, even if the termination letter was framed differently.

The adjudicator had also considered the separate argument that a single positive test justified dismissal. Either way, the decisive problem was the same: GFL had not investigated the surrounding circumstances or evaluated a proportionate response.

A policy breach did not complete the legal analysis

The board explained the just-cause framework drawn from McKinley and subsequent cases. An employer must establish the nature and extent of the misconduct, consider the surrounding circumstances, and determine whether dismissal is proportionate. The burden rests on the employer to prove just cause on a balance of probabilities.

Warwick found that the adjudicator had identified and applied those requirements. The adjudicator understood the allegation to involve a single policy breach, considered the workplace’s safety-sensitive character, and addressed the need for an investigation and an assessment of discipline.

GFL’s position that one positive test was enough in a safety-sensitive role did not displace that analysis. The board upheld the adjudicator’s conclusion that a positive test alone did not establish impairment, risk or grounds for dismissal without supporting circumstances. GFL’s own policy also required discipline to reflect the particular violation and its surrounding facts.

Because there had been no investigation, there was no resulting assessment of whether dismissal was the appropriate response. GFL had therefore failed to prove the just cause needed to avoid the statutory termination obligation.

The board dismissed the appeal and confirmed the adjudicator’s decision. The existing $5,958.19 wage assessment remains upheld; the ruling does not add a second award, order reinstatement or decide a separate common-law wrongful-dismissal claim.