View cases - Stewart McKelvey

that its standard was reasonably necessary in that Mr. Pannu’s beard could not have beenaccommodated without undue hardship.[49] It is useful to consider the complaints against the WCB and Skeena separately.ANALYSISThe Complaint against the WCB[50] The WCB standard in issue in this case is contained in Reg. 14.23 and, in particular, therequirement that all workers who may have to wear SCBAs be clean-shaven where the respiratorseals with the face. The WCB has conceded that its standard prima facie discriminates againstMr. Pannu because of his religion. Mr. Pannu has conceded that the standard is rationallyconnected to the WCB’s function of protecting workers’ health and safety and that it wasimposed in good faith. At issue is whether the standard is reasonably necessary in the sense thatit cannot admit of exceptions or modifications without creating undue hardship.[51] Mr. Pannu submits that Reg. 14.23 could have been drafted to explicitly accommodatepersons who wear beards for religious reasons. He also argued that the WCB could have“treated Mr. Pannu more humanely” in March 1994, by allowing Skeena and Mr. Pannu time towork out a mutually agreeable solution before imposing a fine. After setting out Reg. 14.23, Iwill address each of these arguments in turn.Regulation 14.23 provides as follows:14.23. (1)(a) When workers are or may be exposed to an oxygen deficientatmosphere or to harmful concentrations of air contaminants, mechanical meansor engineering design shall be utilized to prevent or to eliminate such hazardousconditions of exposure.(b) Where the prevention or elimination of such hazardous conditions is notreasonably practicable, or where the exposure results from temporary oremergency conditions only, every worker exposed shall wear protectiverespiratory equipment.12