B.C. privacy adjudicator looks at whether employer violated PIPA
A painter at an LNG construction site who was told he must submit to drug and alcohol testing and refused has been validated with a recent decision.
The worker had alleged that his employer collected, used, and disclosed his personal information contrary to the Personal Information Protection Act (PIPA).
On April 15, 2026, in Order P26-05, BC privacy adjudicator Carol Pakkala agreed, confirming that Altrad Services Ltd. was not authorized to collect or use that information.
Drug and alcohol test refused
The complainant worked as a painter for Altrad, a subcontractor on the LNG Canada project in Kitimat, B.C. On June 14, 2023, he and other Altrad employees were sent to an offsite location in an Altrad vehicle, where there was no work for them to do. After about an hour, an Altrad representative ordered them to return to the project site with haste.
At the main gate, JFJV security guards pulled the vehicle over and contacted Altrad management requesting authorization to search it; Altrad gave that authorization. The painter was not asked for and did not give his consent to the search.
Sniffer “dogs alerted” or detected something in the vehicle and personal items inside. Altrad then demanded that the painter submit to drug and alcohol testing. He refused. As a result, Altrad terminated his employment, and JFJV banned him from the project site.
Impairment not ‘current’ at workplace
Altrad argued the employee personal information collected was done so primarily to ensure the health and safety of its employees and others at the project site. The adjudicator accepted that purpose was reasonably required to manage the employment relationship and found the information qualified as "employee personal information."
However, Altrad still needed authority under PIPA to collect and use it. And Pakkala found that Altrad collected and used more information than was necessary.
She noted that Altrad's documents indicated that impairment was not current at the time the personal information was collected and used. On the testing demand form dated the same day as the search, the question "Is impairment current and while at the company workplace?" was answered "No."
Unsigned conditional offer
Altrad relied on a Conditional Offer of Employment and a Drug and Alcohol Policy. The offer was addressed to, but not signed by, the painter. The adjudicator also found the unsigned offer did not amount to definitive and unambiguous corroborating proof of express consent.
"Altrad does not say, and I cannot see, that the offer or the policy provide notice that an Altrad employee might be subject to any kind of search at the workplace, let alone a drug dog search, or that such a search might lead to a demand for testing."
The adjudicator rejected Altrad's reliance on the investigation exceptions in ss. 12(1)(c) and 15(1)(c), and concluded the collection and use were not reasonable under ss. 13(2)(b) and 16(2)(b). Deemed consent under s. 8 also failed.
On disclosure, there was insufficient evidence to conclude Altrad, rather than the painter, disclosed the refusal-to-test information to JFJV. On s. 5(a); Altrad was found to have complied.
While Pakkala confirmed Altrad was not authorized under s. 6, she declined to order any duty under s. 52(3)(a) or a stop-collection order under s. 52(3)(e), because the conduct was not ongoing once the painter's employment was terminated.
