Mandatory mask policies and human rights

Sharma disagreed with the by-law because he did not believe the effcacy of masks had been suffciently proven. The Tribunal held this did not engage creed within the meaning of the code. Creed generally involves sincerelyheld religious beliefs or practices, not political opinion. It did find that the ground of disability was engaged, since Sharma provided details about two of his medical conditions.

Sharma alleged that he had been lectured, harassed and turned away when he advised businesses of his inability to wear a mask. While the Tribunal acknowledged that those businesses may have breached the Code, Sharma failed to provide a basis to attribute that conduct to the City.

The by-law requires mask policies to provide exemptions for people with medical conditions. The City could not be blamed for the alleged conduct of businesses who incorrectly applied the by-law. Accordingly, the tribunal found that Sharma had no reasonable prospect of success in proving discrimination by the City. The Tribunal’s decision provides assurance to businesses that individuals will be unable to assert human rights claims where their refusal to wear a mask is based on a personal belief. But businesses should explore other options for providing services to those unable to wear masks for medical reasons, or they may be subject to discrimination claims by people with medical conditions who are denied service due to a company’s unwillingness to accommodate their inability to comply with the by-law.

---

Photo: Wirestock - stock.adobe.com