2 Stores That Required Shoppers To Wear A Mask Did Not Violate Human Rights, A Court Rules
A medical exemption doesn't allow people to "simply do what they please."
Store policies that make it a requirement for shoppers to wear a mask do not violate peoples' human rights, a court has ruled.
In two new decisions, B.C.'s Human Rights tribunal has dismissed complaints against Lululemon in Vancouver and Creatures Pet Store in Victoria. Both cases involve stores which had introduced its own mask policy before the provincial mask mandate came into effect.
In the first case, Yvonne Coelho entered the Lululemon store in Vancouver in November 2020 without wearing a face mask. When asked to wear a face covering by the assistant manager, Coelho refused saying she was "exempt" while also filming the conversation. The store employee then asked her to leave and offered her the option to shop online.
B.C. Human Rights Tribunal chair Emily Ohler said that while there may be medical exemptions preventing a person from wearing a mask, it doesn't allow them to "simply do what they please" in a store which requires other shoppers to wear a face covering.
She added: "The fact that Ms. Coelho said that she could not wear a mask did not give her an 'exemption' from the mask policy that allowed her to simply disregard it and enjoy unfettered, maskless physical access to Lululemon's stores, which is what she appeared to assert in the video."
In a second complaint, Karleigh-Laurel Ratchford claims she was discriminated against "on the basis of disability" after staff at the Creatures Pet Store in Victoria denied her entry to their store.
Ratchford visited the store in August 2020 and was offered a $5 face shield as an alternative to a mask and also told she could use curbside pickup.
She refused both options and, according to court documents, she then raised her voice towards store employees, told them masks are ineffective and that their mask policy was against human rights law.
Ohler also dismissed this case saying there the store had "discharged its duty to accommodate" Ratchford.
In both decisions, the court says that mask policies are not violating human rights as long as they are there to protect staff and fellow shoppers, and that other alternatives such as delivery or curbside pickup are available.