The question are asked by the following

In late August, after a "date night" at a local casino with his spouse, an assistant fire chief Mr. Bailey was pulled over as he was driving home by the RCMP. He was caught speeding. When the RCMP officer asked him for his license, he was told by Mr. Bailey that he was out for a date with his wife and he had been working very hard due to the forest fire season in the area and was tired. The RCMP officer smelled alcohol and asked Mr. Bailey to take a breathalyzer test. Mr. Bailey failed the test and then the RCMP officer asked him to come to the station for a second test which he also failed. The RCMP impounded the truck he was driving and Mr. Bailey was given a 90 day ban on driving. Mr. Bailey at the time had been driving an unmarked fire department pickup truck. When his employer - the City - learned that this happened, the Mayor and City Council and its Chief Administrative Officer found out about these facts, Mr. Bailey was terminated with cause after they completed a review and verified all facts. Mr. Bailey was an exemplary employee and had never been in trouble with the law. This decision was made by the parties mentioned above despite the City's fire chief recommending a suspension. Mr. Bailey plans to sue the City. What is the main legal issue? 2 marks What is the main legal test/rule of law governing this issue? 1 mark What is an argument for the plaintiff Mr. Bailey? 1 mark What is an argument for the City as the defendant? 1 mark