Businesses are well within their rights in preventing maskless shoppers from visiting retail stores, a human rights tribunal ruled..An Edmonton adjudicator dismissed two separate complaints by shoppers who claimed in-store mask rules were a breach of the Human Rights Act, including one who was escorted from a Costco outlet by police, as first reported by Blacklock’s Reporter..James Beaudin, of Edmonton, complained he was denied entry to a Peoples Jewellers store last October 9 after he refused to put on a mask for medical reasons. “Staff was firm and the complainant was told to leave,” the Tribunal noted..“This was definitely discrimination against a person suffering from medical disability as stated in our Charter Of Rights And Freedoms of Canada!” Beaudin wrote the Tribunal..However lawyers for Peoples Jewellers replied even store employees were required to be masked at all times as a pandemic precaution, and that maskless customers were offered alternatives including telephone shopping and free home delivery..“The policy was introduced in good faith,” wrote Michael Gottheil, adjudicator with the Alberta Human Rights Tribunal..“The question is whether the policy was introduced for a valid and legitimate business purpose, was introduced in good faith and there were no alternatives available to accommodate those negatively affected without incurring undue hardship,” wrote Gottheil. The mask policy “was introduced in good faith,” he said..In a separate case, Peter Szeles, also of Edmonton, complained he was barred from browsing in a Costco Wholesale outlet without a mask last November 17. Costco lawyers submitted evidence that Szeles had published social media posts that “purport to suggest the Covid-19 pandemic is a hoax and a conspiracy, and that public health measures are an unwarranted infringement on civil liberties,” said the Tribunal..In the Costco case, employees offered maskless customers free use of a face shield. Szeles declined. “An altercation ensued, the police were called and Szeles was removed from the store,” the Tribunal was told..Szeles argued the offer of a face shield was humiliating since it would “single him out as a person with a disability,” and that there was no medical evidence face shields were effective in preventing infection..“The Human Rights Act and human rights jurisprudence accept that limitations to the right to be free from discrimination may be justified where the limitation or rule is instituted for valid reasons, and is instituted in the good faith belief that it is necessary,” wrote the Tribunal..Western Standard staff
