This is a sample Accommodation E-lert. A one-year subscription to Accommodation E-Lert provides instant access to the latest cases on the duty to accommodate in Canada and their impact on the unionized workplace.

Human rights tribunal dismisses complaint of employee who could not use a safety mask due to facial hair

Accommodation E-lert, posted on May 7, 2026 within the category "The definition of undue hardship".

As part of his ferry worker duties as First Engineer, an employee was required to be clean shaven so as to properly fit a self- contained breathing apparatus or mask.  However, the employee wore a beard and could not shave his face due to a medical condition.  Once alerted to the issue, the employer entered into discussions about potential accommodation that led to the employee accepting an alternate position.  The employee later resigned and alleged a failure to accommodate his disability in the position to which he was hired.  The employer successfully brought an application to dismiss the complaint without a full hearing.

Legal Citation

Chaudhuri v. British Columbia Ferry Service Inc, 2026 BCHRT 81 (CanLII) (March 31, 2026) (Dean, Tribunal Member)

Facts

The employer operates a large, coastal ferry service in British Columbia and the employee was hired as a First Engineer, a position designated as a member of the fire response team. 

Members of the team had to be able to wear protective equipment that included a mask connected to the employer's safety system. 

Since the mask cannot provide a proper seal with facial hair, the employer had a policy that all members of the fire team must be clean shaven.

The employee could not serve on the fire team because he had a medical condition that meant he could not shave.  The employer provided the employee with temporary accommodation that did not require him to be on the fire team and maintained his regular pay and title.  Eventually, the employer offered the employee the position of Chief Engineer and the employee accepted.  

As a result, his union held a grievance over the accommodation issue in abeyance. 

A year later, the employee resigned and filed a human rights complaint, alleging that the employer discriminated against him in providing options in place of his First Engineer position.   

The tribunal member noted the employee's claim for loss of overtime opportunities and summarized the employee's argument with respect to all the proposals in place of the First Engineer position:

[24]  As I understand it, Mr. Chaudhuri rejected these proposals for various reasons, including that he did not want to work graveyard shifts, wanted to accrue sea time, which he could not do on Island-class vessels, and did not want to relocate outside of Nanaimo, which he would be required to do in order to work the refit shifts.

The employer claimed that it had met its duty to accommodate and brought an application to dismiss the complaint without a full hearing. 

Analysis

The tribunal member first noted the parameters of a dismissal application:

[37] A dismissal application is not the same as a hearing:   The threshold to advance a complaint to a hearing is low. In a dismissal application, a complainant does not have to prove their complaint or show the Tribunal all the evidence they may introduce at a hearing. They only have to show that the evidence takes their complaint out of the realm of conjecture 

The tribunal member then relied upon the Supreme Court's decision in Moore to evaluate the likelihood of success for the employee's claim.¹ 

[39] To prove his complaint at a hearing, Mr. Chaudhuri will have to prove that he has a characteristic protected by the Code, he was adversely impacted in employment, and his protected characteristic was a factor in the adverse impact  If he did that, the burden would shift to BC Ferries to justify the impact as a bona fide occupational requirement. If the impact is justified, there is no discrimination.

Where the burden was met, the tribunal member held that that the employer would have to establish that it met its duty to accommodate:

[40] To justify its conduct at a hearing, BC Ferries would have to prove that: (1) it adopted the requirement to be clean shaven for a purpose rationally connected to the performance of the job, (2) it adopted the requirement to be clean shaven in an honest and good faith belief that it was necessary to the fulfillment of that legitimate purpose; and (3) the requirement to be clean shaven is reasonably necessary to the accomplishment of that legitimate purpose. This third element encompasses BC Ferries' duty to accommodate Mr. Chaudhuri to the point of undue hardship: British Columbia (Public Service Employee Relations Commission) v. British Columbia Government and Service Employees' Union (Meiorin Grievance), 1999 CanLII 652 (SCC), [1999] 3 SCR 3 at para. 54.

The tribunal member went on to reject the employer's initial argument that the employee had no reasonable prospect of establishing prima facie discrimination, given there was evidence of adverse impact.  As such, the tribunal member moved on to the duty to accommodate issue:

[41] It is trite law that the search for a reasonable accommodation requires the participation of both an employer and an employee, and if an employer makes a proposal for an accommodation that is reasonable and would, if accepted, fulfill the duty to accommodate, an employee has a duty to facilitate the implementation of the proposal. Similarly, an employee in need of accommodation cannot expect a perfect solution, and if an employee turns down a reasonable proposal, then an employer s duty will be discharged: Central Okanagan School District No. 23 v. Renaud, 1992 CanLII 81 (SCC), [1992] 2 S.C.R. 970.

On this basis, the tribunal member found that, in the circumstances, it was a reasonable certainty that the employer would meet its duty to accommodate:

[62] In summary, I am satisfied that BC Ferries is reasonably certain to prove a defence, including that it took all reasonable and practical steps to ensure Mr. Chaudhuri s equitable participation in the workplace. Here, BC Ferries  evidence demonstrates that it investigated multiple options to keep Mr. Chaudhuri in the First Engineer Position. In my view, it is reasonably certain to prove that the options it rejected were unreasonable or impractical and would have constituted undue hardship. I therefore dismiss Mr. Chaudhuri s complaint.

Takeaways for Unions

This case reinforces that employees are entitled to reasonable, but not perfect, accommodation. While an employee may be dissatisfied with a particular accommodation, an alternative accommodation must be possible without undue hardship. 

Takeaways for Employers

An employer has the duty to craft a reasonable accommodation upon becoming aware of an employee s disability.  If an employer can establish that alternatives would be unreasonable, it will meet its duty to accommodate. 

¹ Moore v. British Columbia (Education), 2012 SCC 61 at para 33.