Lessons From B.C. Human Rights Tribunal Decision Lau v. Village Food Markets

In response to COVID-19, the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal (the “Tribunal”) experienced a flood of complaints related to mask mandates.

One such case is Lau v. Village Food Markets and another, 2025 BCHRT 280 (“Village Food”).

The complainant in Village Food filed a complaint against the respondent and one of its employees alleging that they refused to accommodate her medical mask exemption. In 2021, while the mask mandate was in place, the complainant entered the grocery store without a mask. When asked by employees to put on a mask, she refused and advised the store employees that she had a medical exemption. The complainant refused to provide information about her medical exemption. She was provided a short period of time to complete her shopping and then required to leave. The complainant made a complaint to the Tribunal alleging that she was subjected to discrimination in accessing a service due to her disability contrary to section 8 of the B.C. Human Rights Code (the “Code”).

For a complaint of discrimination to succeed at the Tribunal, a complainant must establish a prima facie case of discrimination. This means complainants must prove:

• they have a personal characteristic protected by the Code, e.g. a disability;
• they experienced adverse impact or treatment in an area covered by the Code, e.g. in accessing a service or in employment; and
• their protected characteristic was a factor in the adverse impact or treatment.

In Village Food, the Tribunal found the complainant to have established she had a disability. She shared that she had had a stroke, cancer and additional conditions. She testified that wearing a mask had “potentially dangerous effects” on her but did not provide evidence from a physician or expert about her need to wear a mask.

The Tribunal, however, concluded that the complainant could not establish a case of prima facie disability because she could not establish that her disability interfered with her ability to wear a mask. The Tribunal proceeded to dismiss the complaint.

The respondent’s employees in Village Food acted reasonably. Unfortunately, acting reasonably did not help the respondent avoid the time and expense of a complaint and the related litigation.

That is largely because of the low bar that complainants are required to meet to establish prima facie discrimination. For example, they can establish they have a disability simply by describing their condition from their own perspective – without clear, cogent and compelling medical information.

All of this said, there are steps an organization can take to avoid liability for discrimination. They are set out below.

Takeaways

Proper training will help your staff make good decisions when confronted with circumstances that might give rise to a human rights complaint. Have training, policies, and procedures that address:

1. characteristics protected by the Code;
2. organization-specific or role-specific circumstances where the employee might need to be aware of the possibility of discrimination allegations; and
3. the need for a flexible rather than rigid approach when employees or customers or patrons disclose their disability is causing some difficulty in a particular environment.

Due to Tribunal delays and time limits for filing a complaint, a respondent often learns about a complaint many, many months or even years after the events in question occurred. This can prejudice a respondent due to loss of documents and records, unavailability of witnesses, and fading witness memories. If there is an event in your organization that you suspect could result in a future complaint, be sure to save documents and obtain witness statements or investigation notes so that if a complaint is made down the road, you will be better prepared to respond.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.