The findings suggest a need for more conversations about potential links between cannabis use and mental health. (Photo 145163163 © Dmitry Tishchenko | Dreamstime.com)

By Harriette Halepis

ruling

Claims of contact high dismissed by B.C. tribunal

Nov 22, 2023 | 7:00 AM

In 2019, a former employee of Koppert Canada, Patricia Gendron, claimed that she experienced a contact high that left her unable to perform her work duties as a technical consultant after visiting a cannabis facility.

She asked the company to remove the cannabis grower from her inspection rounds for “safety, physical, and also legal reasons.”

According to a statement made by Gendron, she became concerned about visiting the cannabis facility after being pulled over by a police officer following one of her routine visits.

“…my concern is mainly focused around the warning I was given from a police officer (doing a training exercise pulling everyone over) where after stating that I work in the cannabis industry he said that it was fine, but I should have been on a direct route home and not make any unnecessary stops,” she said.

Following consultation with Gendron’s doctor, Koppert offered her part-time factory work and revoked her company car and driving duties until the company could maintain further medical clarification. Gendron refused the new position and brought the case to court, claiming Koppert had violated her human rights based on a disability.

living soil

Cultivating cannabis in a time of drought and climate change

May 06, 2024

Challenge with cannabis

Impaired driving rules unclear say medical cannabis advocates

May 02, 2024

celebrating cannabis

High Ground Festival aims to make cannabis fun again

Apr 18, 2024

On Oct. 27, tribunal member Devyn Cuisineau dismissed the case without trial, stating that Gendron’s claim did not fit the law’s definition of a human rights violation based on disability discrimination.

“…the Code only governs situations where a person faces discrimination because of a protected characteristic,” Cuisineau stated,

“…here, Ms.Gendron seeks the protection of the Code based on a disability. However, based on the evidence before me in this application, Ms. Gendron has no reasonable prospect of proving that any symptoms she was feeling from exposure to cannabis stemmed from a disability. In this situation, her complaint has no reasonable prospect of success and is dismissed.”

Whether or not a contact high can be obtained from close encounters with cannabis remains to be seen, though some studies have shown that a contact high from inhaled second-hand smoke is rare. This dismissed case is a matter of black-and-white legal terms.

“Were the condition genuine, it would have required an accommodation,” said labour lawyer Dan Goldstein.

“…however, legal professionals aren’t well placed to make that assessment. People make a lot of claims. We, therefore, rely on those with the necessary scientific background to explain to us if a claim is legitimate. If the claim was thrown out on an application to dismiss, its meant that there was no scientific evidence of a condition affecting people spending an extended amount of time in the vicinity of large quantities of cannabis (and not cannabis smoke).”

Koppert claims that Gendron’s doctor provided “…confusing, contradictory and wholly inadequate information.”

—

info@westernbuzz.ca