View cases - Stewart McKelvey

emergency procedure that the Complainant attacks is Skeena’s designation of the RecaustOperator and ARO as the two people who must perform the procedure. Mr. Pannu argues thatSkeena ought to have accommodated his inability to safely wear an SCBA by designatingsomeone other than him to perform the shut down with the ARO, should an emergency occur onhis shifts. Skeena argues that such an accommodation would constitute undue hardship.[67] As the Recaust Operator, ARO and Utilityman are the only positions in the recaustdepartment, the consequence of exempting Mr. Pannu from the emergency procedure is that theARO and Utilityman would have to perform the shut down should a gas emergency occur on oneof Mr. Pannu’s shifts. To avoid a finding of discrimination, Skeena must prove, on a balance ofprobabilities, that substituting the Utilityman for the ARO and the ARO for Mr. Pannu, as I havedescribed, would constitute undue hardship.[68] Following the analysis in Grismer that I described in discussion the WCB complaint, Imust first state the purpose of the requirement in issue. I find that the purpose of the emergencyprocedure is to ensure that the kilns, slakers and pressure filter are made safe so as to eliminateor minimize any further hazards in a gas emergency.[69] In Grismer, the respondent initially tried to justify its refusal to consider individualtesting by arguing that accommodating Mr. Grismer was totally incompatible with the purpose ofits standard. When it failed to succeed on this basis, it argued that individualized testing wouldconstitute undue hardship because such tests would be too expensive and too dangerous.[70] In the present case, I must determine whether Skeena has shown that exempting Mr.Pannu from its requirement that Recaust Operators perform shut downs would be completelyincompatible with the purpose of eliminating or minimizing dangers from the equipment duringa gas emergency. If so, the requested accommodation would be impossible. If not, I mustconsider whether exempting Mr. Pannu would constitute undue hardship to Skeena.[71] Before addressing these questions, I must consider an interesting submission on howcarefully I ought to scrutinize Skeena’s requirement that Recaust Operators and AROs performthe shut down. Counsel for Skeena submitted that courts scrutinize qualifying standards for jobsor services much more rigorously than they do requirements that comprise part of the job or17