Skip to content

Brought to you by

Dentons logo in black and white

Dentons Canadian Employment & Labour Law

Making the law work for your workplace.

open menu close menu

Dentons Canadian Employment & Labour Law

  • Home
  • About Us
  • Topics
    • Topics
    • Labour
    • Workplace investigations
    • Montréal Newsletter

Alberta Human Rights Tribunal dismisses mask policy complaints

By April Kosten
September 16, 2021
  • COVID-19
Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share via email Share on LinkedIn

As a result of COVID-19, many businesses have developed and implemented mandatory masking policies. The Alberta Human Rights Tribunal recently dismissed two complaints of discrimination relating to such policies. Both complainants had refused to wear a face mask, claiming their disability prevented them from doing so, and were refused entry to the business’ premises.

Background

In Szeles v Costco Wholesale Canada Ltd., 2021 AHRC 154, on arriving at the store, Mr. Szeles was told that a face mask would be required to enter Costco. When Mr. Szeles indicated that his disability exempted him from Costco’s mask policy, he was offered a face shield as an alternative. Online shopping and home delivery were also provided as options. Mr. Szeles refused all the options offered to him and, following an altercation, was removed from the store.

In Beaudin v Zale Canada Co. o/a Peoples Jewellers, 2021 AHRC 155, the jewelry store refused to allow Mr. Beaudin to enter unless he put on a face mask. Mr. Beaudin explained he was exempt from the store’s policy because of health reasons. Peoples Jewellers offered alternatives, such as telephone and online shopping and curb-side pickup, but Mr. Beaudin rejected them. As a result, the store asked Mr. Beaudin to leave.

After being denied entry, both complainants alleged the respondent stores discriminated against them in the area of goods, services and accommodation on the ground of physical disability, in contravention of Section 4 of the Alberta Human Rights Act. Additionally, Mr. Szeles argued that denying entry to a person who cannot wear a face mask and offering other options short of unrestricted entry did not amount to reasonable accommodation. He also claimed that face shields were not a reasonable alternative because they did not offer protection against transmission of COVID-19, and would stigmatize him by singling him out as a person with a disability. Mr. Beaudin argued that, at the time, there was no mandatory public health requirement in place that supported the policy.

The two complaints were reviewed and dismissed by the Director of the Alberta Human Rights Commission. In each case, the complainant filed a Request for Review of the Director’s decision.

Decisions

In both cases, the Tribunal acknowledged that mandatory masking policies have adverse impacts on persons who have disabilities that prevent them from using face masks. However, the Tribunal noted that limitations to the right to be free from discrimination may be justified where:

(a)    The limitation or rule is instituted for valid reasons;

(b)     It is instituted in the good faith belief that it is necessary; and

(c)     It is impossible to accommodate persons who may be adversely affected, without undue hardship.

The Tribunal found that the mandatory masking policies were designed to protect the health and safety of employees and the public, which constituted a legitimate business purpose. Further, public health guidance and epidemiological research established that such restrictions were reasonable and justifiable in the circumstances, and the public health regulations did not prevent businesses from instituting their own COVID-19 health and safety policies. Importantly, both respondents had provided alternatives to accommodate those unable to wear face masks. The Tribunal held that allowing people to enter stores without face masks would cause undue hardship. As a result, the Tribunal was unable to find a reasonable basis to have the complaints proceed to a hearing and upheld the dismissals.

Takeaway for employers

While employers and service providers must accommodate the effects of a discriminatory policy to the point of undue hardship, human rights law is a balancing act. Health and safety are important factors that must be considered in any balancing exercise conducted, particularly in the context of COVID-19.

While these decisions did not consider employee complaints, the underlying reasoning is equally applicable to employers who implement masking policies. Those employers who have decided to implement a masking mandate, even where it is not mandated by the province, may reasonably seek to rely on the scientific evidence that masking reduces transmission and, therefore, protects the health and safety of employees and others in the workplace, to provide justification for their policy, subject to the duty to accommodate to the point of undue hardship.

Further, as long as reasonable alternatives are offered, employers can likely take a hard-lined approach requiring masks for all individuals entering the workplace in order to ensure the health and safety of all employees. We note, however, that as is the case with all policies implemented in the context of COVID-19, the need for such policy must be re-evaluated on a regular basis in light of the risks and science present at any given time.

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share via email Share on LinkedIn
Subscribe and stay updated
Receive our latest blog posts by email.
Stay in Touch
April Kosten

About April Kosten

April Kosten is a partner and the practice lead in Calgary’s Employment & Labour group. Her practice focuses on management side labour, employment, human rights, administrative and privacy law.

All posts Full bio

RELATED POSTS

  • COVID-19
  • General
  • Labour
  • Union Issues
  • Workplace investigations

To be in-person or remote at labour arbitration hearings… that is the question

By Russell Groves and Claire Browne
  • COVID-19
  • General

What Alberta’s new restrictions mean for employers and their business

By April Kosten, Jennifer A. Thompson, and Roxana Jangi
  • Constructive Dismissal
  • COVID-19
  • General

No answer yet: The Ontario Court of Appeal declines to determine whether an IDEL layoff amounts to constructive dismissal

By Catherine Coulter and Emily Kroboth

About Dentons

Redefining possibilities. Together, everywhere. For more information visit dentons.com

Grow, Protect, Operate, Finance. Dentons, the law firm of the future is here. Copyright 2023 Dentons. Dentons is a global legal practice providing client services worldwide through its member firms and affiliates. Please see dentons.com for Legal notices.

Categories

  • Amendments to Safety Laws
  • Confidentiality/Trade Secrets
  • Constructive Dismissal
  • COVID-19
  • Criminal Offences by Employees
  • Employment Standards
  • Executive Compensation
  • General
  • Human Rights
  • Immigration
  • Labour
  • Montréal Newsletter
  • Occupational Health and Safety
  • Pay Equity
  • Pensions and Benefits
  • Privacy
  • Restrictive Covenants
  • Union Issues
  • Workers' Compensation
  • Workplace investigations
  • Wrongful Dismissal
  • WSIB

Subscribe and stay updated

Receive our latest blog posts by email.

Stay in Touch

Dentons logo in black and white

© 2025 Dentons

  • Legal notices
  • Privacy policy
  • Terms of use
  • Cookies on this site