Skip to content

Retailer’s mandatory mask mandate – no discrimination based on disability or religious belief

Sean Kelly and Will Wojcik

A recent decision of the Human Rights Tribunal of Alberta (“Tribunal”) dismissing a customer’s allegations of discrimination based on physical disability and religious belief against a Natural Food Store’s mandatory mask policy confirms our recent thoughts that triers of fact will take a measured and principled approach to enforcing mandatory mask policies in the retail sector. Pelletier v 1226309 Alberta Ltd. o/a Community Natural Foods2021 AHRC 192 adds to the body of developing case law upholding health and safety policies aimed at reducing the spread of COVID-19.

Key takeaways include:

  • Robust medical documentation is needed to support an exception to a mask-wearing policy on the basis of disability;
  • Religious-based challenges to a mask or vaccination policy will be construed narrowly for human rights purposes – personal beliefs of a complainant about COVID-19 and preventative measures, even if couched in religious terms, will not amount to discrimination on the basis of religion.
  • To support not adhering to a mandatory mask policy, complainants will have to provide a sufficient objective basis to establish that the belief is a tenet of a religious faith and a critical part of expressing that faith.
  • The duty to accommodate does not require service providers or employers to remedy all inconvenience or hardship – the purpose of the restriction and surrounding circumstances are important.

Background

On January 31, 2021, Mr. Pelletier entered Community Natural Foods store but refused to wear a mask, claiming he was “medically exempt” and that the mask mandate infringed upon his religious beliefs. The grocery store denied him entry but offered various accommodations, such as online shopping, free home delivery, curbside pick up, and use of a personal shopping assistant.

He was unsatisfied with the alternatives and filed a human rights complaint claiming, amongst other things, that if he wore a mask, he would become immediately and violently ill. Supporting evidence included:

  • A doctor’s note stating only that he was “medically exempt from wearing a mask due to a medical condition”;
  • Wearing a face mask infringes on his religious beliefs which he supported with Bible passages and an assertion that his beliefs were sincerely held; and
  • Personal statements/beliefs that “face masks are useless”.

Decision

The Tribunal dismissed the complaint finding that there was insufficient information to support a claim of discrimination.

With respect to disability, the Tribunal explained that allegations of discrimination based on disability should be supported by sufficient evidence including a formal diagnosis and the restrictions that flow from the disability and the accommodations required.

As to religious belief, the Tribunal cited a recent British Columbia decision (The Worker v The District Managers, 2021 BCHRT 41) dealing with a similar complaint, highlighting:

The Code does not protect people who refuse to wear a mask as a matter of personal preference, because they believe wearing a mask is “pointless”, or because they disagree that wearing masks helps to protect the public during the pandemic. 

The Tribunal went on to confirm that to successfully establish a claim of religious discrimination there must be a sufficient objective basis to establish that a particular belief is a tenet of a religious faith (whether or not it is widely adopted by others of the faith) that is a fundamental or important part of expressing that faith.

Mr. Pelletier failed to meet these requirements.

Lastly, with respect to the accommodations offered by the retailer, the Tribunal confirmed that accommodations need not be perfect or be the complainant’s preferred accommodation.  Rather, the analysis must take all of the circumstances into account and be applied with a practical, “common sense” approach.  Here, the retailer was making best efforts to operate during a global pandemic, tasked with balancing competing interests of customer service versus adequate safety precautions, while trying to stay up-to-date with the evolving science and government-mandated health requirements.  Very simply, even if there had been a finding of discrimination, reasonable accommodations were offered and providing an exemption to the Complainant would have resulted in undue hardship in the circumstances.

Implication for Businesses

The case acknowledges the challenges of operating a business during a pandemic and provides continued support for implementing stringent measures to protect the public from the spread of COVID-19. It confirms our inclination that the bar for establishing discrimination and deviation from mandatory policies will be high and that “personal preferences” do not justify exemptions from policies aimed at promoting health and safety.

While more decisions will inevitably follow, we encourage businesses to continue to monitor the changing landscape and seek advice from our team regarding implementation of mandatory polices, accommodations or exemptions.


This client update is provided for general information only and does not constitute legal advice. If you have any questions about the above, please contact a member of our Labour and Employment group.

 

Click here to subscribe to Stewart McKelvey Thought Leadership.

SHARE

Archive

Search Archive


 
 

Reset for renewables: Nova Scotia overhauls energy regulation and governance in advance of influx of renewable energy

April 5, 2024

By Nancy Rubin and James Gamblin The Government of Nova Scotia has embarked on a path to dramatically reshape the regulation and governance of the energy sector with the passage of Bill 404, the Energy…

Read More

An employer’s guide to human rights law in Atlantic Canada

April 2, 2024

By Kathleen Starke and Annie Gray Human rights landscape Human rights legislation prohibits discrimination in specific contexts, including employment and the provision of services. In all Atlantic Provinces, Human Rights Commissions are responsible for enforcing…

Read More

Recognizing subtle discrimination in the workplace: insights from recent legal cases

March 4, 2024

By Sheila Mecking and Michiko Gartshore Subtle discrimination can have a much stronger and longer effect on employees when not properly addressed. It can also result in costly consequences for an employer who does not…

Read More

Immediate changes to travel eligibility for citizens of Mexico

February 29, 2024

By Brittany Trafford and Brendan Sheridan Today Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (“IRCC”) has announced significant changes to the travel requirements for Mexican citizens. As of February 29, 2024 at 11:30p.m. Eastern Time, all electronic…

Read More

Updated guidance on business reporting obligations under Canada’s supply chain transparency legislation

February 23, 2024

By Christine Pound, ICD.D., Twila Reid, ICD.D., Sarah Dever Letson, CIPP/C, Hilary Newman and Daniel Roth Introduction As we reported on November 30, 2023, the Fighting Against Forced Labour and Child Labour in Supply Chains…

Read More

Trustees beware! New trust reporting and disclosure requirements under the Income Tax Act are here – are you ready for them?

February 21, 2024

By Richard Niedermayer, K.C., TEP  & Rackelle Awad New trust disclosure rules originally announced on February 27, 2018, are now in force, and trusts with taxation years ending on or after December 31, 2023 are…

Read More

Proposed Criminal Interest Rate Regulations: exemptions to the lower criminal interest rate

February 14, 2024

By David Wedlake and Andrew Paul In late December 2023, the Federal Government issued draft Criminal Interest Rate Regulations under the Criminal Code. These proposed regulations follow the Budget Implementation Act, 2023, No. 1 which…

Read More

Outlook for 2024 Proxy Season

February 9, 2024

By Andrew Burke, Colleen Keyes, Gavin Stuttard, David Slipp and Logan Walters With proxy season on the horizon, many public companies are once again preparing their annual disclosure documents and shareholder materials for their annual…

Read More

Significant changes announced for new study permit applications

February 6, 2024

By Brendan Sheridan and Tiegan Scott The Government of Canada recently announced further changes to the international student program that not only limits the number of new study permit applicants per year, but also increases…

Read More

Plans of arrangement come to Newfoundland and Labrador

January 30, 2024

By Tauna Staniland, K.C., ICD.D, Joe Thorne, and Nadine Otten What can you do when your corporation wants to complete a complex transaction requiring significant corporate restructuring that cannot be easily completed under the corporation’s…

Read More

Search Archive


Scroll To Top