Not sure if I commented on this back in June or not:

A construction company discriminated against an employee when it fired him after his pre-employment drug test showed traces of marijuana, an Alberta judge has ruled.

Justice Sheilah Martin said the man should have been treated like someone with a drug addiction, and that is considered a disability in a growing body of human rights case law across Canada.

It is believed to be the first time that Alberta's Court of Queen's Bench has addressed the issue of pre-employment drug testing under human rights legislation, the Canadian Press said.

The ruling is "important for all workers," said Leanne Chahley, an Edmonton labour lawyer who regularly represents unions. It means that a worker does not have to be disabled to challenge a policy as discriminatory, she said.

It also means that companies cannot use drug tests to weed out potential employees who test positive.

Now, not only can companies "not" use pre-employment screening, they have to accommodate pot users:

TORONTO, Ontario (Reuters) -- The use of medical marijuana has given two Toronto professors the right to something that many students could only dream of -- access to specially ventilated rooms where they can indulge in peace.

The two, at the esteemed University of Toronto and at York University to the north of the city, suffer from chronic medical conditions that some doctors say can be eased by smoking marijuana. They are among nearly 1,500 Canadians who have won the right to use the drug for health reasons.

Using human rights legislation, the two petitioned their employers for the right to light up in the workplace. They faced a legal struggle, but the universities eventually agreed.

As an Occupational Health and Safety Professional, I have a problem with this. If someone wants to get stoned to ease their "pain", that's their business. Unless it's on one of my job-sites. Then it becomes my business. Why? Because they're STONED! They're high! They're blasted! They're not firing on all cylinders! That may be fine for some professor in Ontario as we all know they're effed-up to begin with but what about when it's the guy who's operating one of these:

No biggie right? Very few of you will ever be on a site where equipment like this is running around right? How about situations where the work-site can reach out and touch you? Cabs, couriers and highway tractors. What about all those folks who "work" on the same roads you travel on every day? Do you think they'll be exempt from having the "right" to be stoned at work? Guess again. The idea of "safety sensitive positions" is continually being challenged in front of the human rights tribunals.

In a world where employers have a lot of trouble firing pot-heads and in fact, have to accommodate them, expect to see more of this in the future: