Court of Appeal Upholds Dismissal of Mask Refusal Human Rights Complaint

The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal considered whether the Nova Scotia Human Rights Commission acted reasonably in dismissing a complaint at the screening stage. The appellant had filed complaints against several businesses after being denied service for refusing to wear a mask, alleging discrimination based on political belief and creed. The Commission dismissed his complaints, finding they were based on personal views rather than a recognized religion or creed. Both the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal upheld the Commission’s decision, finding it reasonable under the Human Rights Act and consistent with the standard of review set out in Vavilov. The appeal was dismissed without costs.

Administrative law – Decisions reviewed – Human Rights Commission – Discrimation – Judicial review – Appeals – Natural justice – Procedural requirements and fairness – Standard of review – Patent unreasonableness.

Evely v. Nova Scotia (Human Rights Commission), [2025] N.S.J. No. 520, Nova Scotia Court of Appeal, October 17, 2025, C.A. Bourgeois, J.E. Fichaud and R.C.M. Gogan JJ.A.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the Chief Medical Officer of Health in Nova Scotia issued health protection orders mandating mask-wearing in businesses. The appellant was denied service by several businesses when he refused to wear a mask. He subsequently filed complaints with the Nova Scotia Human Rights Commission, alleging discrimination based on political belief and creed. The Commission dismissed his complaints at the screening stage, determining that they were based on personal views rather than a recognized religion or creed. The Commission further denied the appellant’s request for reconsideration.

The appellant sought judicial review of the Commission’s decision in the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia, which was dismissed. The Supreme Court found no nexus between the protected characteristics and the harm. The appellant then appealed this dismissal to the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal.

At the appeal, the appellant argued that the Commission’s dismissal was unreasonable and violated procedural fairness principles and contended that mask mandates were ineffective and infringed on his rights. The Court of Appeal found that the denial of service to the appellant was due to compliance with legally binding public health orders, not because of his political beliefs or creed. The merchants were obligated by law to deny service to those not wearing masks, and this was not a prohibited ground under the Human Rights Act. Therefore, the appellant’s dispute was with the Health Protection Act, and not the businesses. The Commission’s dismissal of the complaint at the screening stage was reasonable under Vavilov’s principles. Lastly, there was no breach of procedural fairness as the Commission had invited the appellant to elaborate and provided him with an opportunity to explain his views through written exchanges.

This case was digested by Eric Mo of Harper Grey LLP.  If you would like to discuss this case further, please feel free to contact him directly at [email protected].