Vaccines, masks, and COVID-19

The Alberta Human Rights Act prohibits discrimination based on protected grounds, which may include a person not getting a vaccine or wearing a mask because of a disability or religious belief.
Abstract collection of circles, half, and quarter circles relating to the dot in the Commission logo. Elements are one of two blue colours or a cheery orange.

What does the Alberta Human Rights Act say about discrimination due to vaccines or masks?

The Alberta Human Rights Act protects individuals from discrimination based on one or more protected grounds and in one or more protected areas. This includes discrimination for not getting a vaccine or wearing a mask because of a mental or physical disability or a religious belief in the areas of employment, housing, or goods and services.

The Act does not protect against personal choice to not get a vaccine or wear a mask. It also does not deal with complaints based on personal opinion, political beliefs, the safety or efficacy of vaccines, or other health measures. The Commission can only deal with complaints under the Act. It cannot deal with complaints under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms or other laws.

What you need to know

  • A protected ground, such as disability or religious beliefs, may support a person not getting a vaccine or wearing a mask.
  • Employers, service providers, and landlords have a duty to accommodate a person’s needs based on a protected ground to the point of undue hardship.
  • In some situations, an employer, service provider, or landlord can justify their decision to not accommodate someone because it was reasonable and justifiable in the circumstances, or it caused undue hardship.
  • A person making a complaint based on a protected ground must show how their protected characteristic prevents them from getting a vaccine or wearing a mask.
  • The Commission cannot address complaints based on personal opinion, political beliefs, or complaints under the Charter or other laws.

Vaccination policies

An employer, service provider, or landlord may, in certain circumstances, implement a policy that requires employees, customers, or tenants to have certain vaccinations. For example, a nursing home operator may have a policy requiring all staff to get the annual flu shot to protect the health of staff and residents. Another example is a restaurant following the Government of Alberta’s laws during the COVID-19 pandemic that allowed them to ask customers for proof of vaccination, a negative COVID-19 test, or a valid medical exemption.

If an employer, service provider, or landlord has a mandatory vaccine policy, it must take reasonable steps to accommodate those who are unvaccinated because of a protected ground. In some situations, an employer, service provider, or landlord can justify their decision to not accommodate someone because it was reasonable and justifiable in the circumstances, or it caused undue hardship.

The accommodation process is most successful when everyone works together to come up with creative, flexible solutions. Accommodation also does not have to be perfect. For example, accommodating an employee may mean allowing them to work remotely rather than coming into the office. Accommodating a customer may mean allowing them to pick up their order curbside rather than coming into the store. Refer to the Duty to accommodate page to learn more about the accommodation process.

A person who experiences discrimination under a vaccination policy and based on a protected ground can make a complaint to the Commission within one year after the incident. A person making a complaint based on a mental or physical disability must provide medical information to confirm they have a disability that prevents them from being vaccinated. A person making a complaint based on a religious belief must show they have a sincerely held belief against vaccinations that is connected to their faith. Refer to the Protected grounds, Making a complaint, and The complaint process pages or the Religious beliefs information sheet to learn more.

Complaints about COVID-19 vaccines and masks

During a public health crisis, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, the right to be free of discrimination based on a protected ground must be balanced with the health and safety of others.

Some people may have faced discrimination because they could not get the COVID-19 vaccine or wear a mask. The Act protects individuals who could not get the vaccine or wear a mask because of a protected ground, such as a disability or religious belief.

The Act does not protect individuals who choose not to get a vaccine or wear a mask based on personal beliefs. During a pandemic, it is not discrimination to:

  • require employees to wear a mask
  • post a notice that requires customers to wear masks
  • refuse to serve someone who is not wearing a mask (unless you have a protected characteristic that requires accommodation)
  • accommodate unvaccinated patrons by requiring them to order takeout rather than dine in the restaurant
  • require unvaccinated employees to work remotely or provide regular negative COVID-19 tests

Those who faced discrimination related to COVID-19 and based on a protected ground can make a complaint to the Commission within one year after the incident.

FAQs

The Act recognizes that sometimes discrimination is reasonable and justifiable in the circumstances. This allows a person or organization responding to a human rights complaint to justify a discriminatory practice, requirement, standard, or policy as being reasonable and justifiable.

A discriminatory practice at work that is reasonable and justifiable is called a bona fide occupational requirement (BFOR). A service provider may have discriminatory standards or policies that are reasonable and justifiable.

Employers, service providers, landlords, and others must meet legal requirements to prove a practice, requirement, standard, or policy is reasonable and justifiable. They must show it:

  • was adopted for a purpose that is rationally connected to the function being performed
  • was made in an honest and good‑faith belief that it was necessary to fulfill a legitimate purpose or goal
  • was reasonably necessary to accomplish that purpose or goal, including that the respondent could not accommodate the complainant without incurring undue hardship

For example, a car insurance company provides different premium rates to people based on a risk assessment of certain age groups. While the company’s rate-setting methods are prima facie (at first glance) discriminatory based on age, the practice of charging more for certain groups is reasonable and justifiable. The insurance company’s methods may be a sound and accepted practice in the industry, and there may be no practical alternatives that are fair to other insured drivers.

Another example is a seniors’ residence only hiring male nursing attendants for male residents who request an attendant of the same gender. A female job applicant applies for a nursing attendant position in the seniors’ residence but is not hired. The employer may have a bona fide occupational requirement, as it is reasonable for residents to have their requests met to preserve their sense of personal dignity and privacy. While the requirement is at first glance discriminatory, it is reasonable and justifiable in the circumstance.

If you are the respondent to a complaint and believe the discrimination described in the complaint is reasonable and justifiable, you should provide detailed information about this in the Response Form.

For more on reasonable and justifiable practices, requirements, standards, or policies, refer to the Defences to Human Rights Complaints human rights guide.

An employer can collect medical information from employees to determine whether an employee is fit to work or requires accommodation. Refer to the Medical information page to learn more.

Human rights legislation is designed to prevent discrimination on certain grounds, such as disability and religious beliefs. However, a pandemic and implementation of public health measures are unusual events. The application and interpretation of human rights law continues to evolve.