In Chiasson v$.$ Kellogg Brown & Root $($Canada$)$ Co$.,$

the Alberta Court of Appeal held that:

Select one:

a$.$ Chiasson's termination as a result of his

positive drug test was not contrary to

human rights law because being drug free

was a BFOR.

b$.$ Chiasson's termination as a result of his

positive drug test was contrary to human

rights law because he was discriminated

against based on perceived disability.

c$.$ Chiasson's termination as a result of his

positive drug test was not contrary to

human rights law because it was based on

the perception that people who use drugs

at all are a safety risk in a safety$-$sensitive

workplace.

d$.$ Chiasson's termination as a result of his

positive drug test was contrary to human

rights law because he was discriminated

against based on mental disability.