Image Credit: UNSPLASH/Atoms

The B.C. Human Rights Tribunal has struck down two complaints from anti-maskers who argued the stores' refusal to allow them to shop without wearing a mask went against their human rights.

The Tribunal decisions, both published Nov. 17, involve two separate cases where individuals entered stores and refused to wear masks, one saying they had asthma, the other arguing they had an "exception" issued in the form of a note from a naturopathic doctor.

However, the B.C. Human Rights dismissed both cases pointing out that neither complainant had proved they'd been discriminated against because of a disability.

Both incidents took place prior to the mandated mask rules brought in by the province.

READ MORE: Kamloops store owner feels drained by ongoing anti masker conflicts

In one case in November 2020, Yvonne Coelho entered a Lululemon store, in an undisclosed location in B.C., with a companion that filmed the events. She then refused to wear a mask.

She was told she could either shop outside or online, but if she wanted to stay in the store she would have to wear a mask.

Coelho told the store manager "I don’t wanna leave" and continued to say the store policy was "discriminatory" and "against the Charter of Rights and Freedoms."

The B.C. Human Rights Tribunal disagreed.

The Tribunal ruled the note from her naturopathic doctor was "vague" and likely not enough to prove that she had a disability-related barrier to wearing a mask. The Tribunal also pointed out Lululemon did offer accommodations by shopping online or outside the store.

"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," the Tribunal ruled. "Rather, it obliged Lululemon to reasonably accommodate her to the point of undue hardship."

READ MORE: The political links between racism and COVID-19 vaccination protests

The Tribunal ruled the store had tried to accommodate Coelho allowing her to shop outside or online and she had refused both options.

As Coelho had refused both options the Tribunal dismissed her case.

In the second case, in August 2020, Karleigh-Laurel Ratchford entered Creatures Pet Store in Victoria and refused to wear a mask saying she had asthma.

The store offered a face shield to purchase for $5 or to use curbside pickup. However, Ratchford refused.

The decision said Ratchford does have asthma but failed to explain how this prevents her from wearing a mask and provided no medical evidence supporting this.

Again, the Tribunal points out the pet store offered Ratchford accommodations in the form of a face shield or to use curbside pickup but Ratchford refused.

Due to these, and more reasons, this case too was dismissed.

To contact a reporter for this story, email Ben Bulmer or call (250) 309-5230 or email the editor. You can also submit photos, videos or news tips to the newsroom and be entered to win a monthly prize draw.

We welcome your comments and opinions on our stories but play nice. We won't censor or delete comments unless they contain off-topic statements or links, unnecessary vulgarity, false facts, spam or obviously fake profiles. If you have any concerns about what you see in comments, email the editor in the link above. 

News from © iNFOnews, 2021