Tahan and another v. Costco Wholesale Canada Ltd., 2026 BCHRT 54
Date Issued: February 27, 2026
File: CS-006177
Indexed as: Tahan and another v. Costco Wholesale Canada Ltd., 2026 BCHRT 54
IN THE MATTER OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS CODE,
RSBC 1996, c. 210 (as amended)
AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint before
the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal
BETWEEN:
Wosim Tahan and Sharon Tahan
COMPLAINANTS
AND:
Costco Wholesale Canada Ltd.
RESPONDENT
REASONS FOR DECISION
APPLICATION TO DISMISS A COMPLAINT
Section 27(1)(c)
Tribunal Member: Edward Takayanagi
For the Complainants: No Submissions
Counsel for the Respondent: Donovan Plomp, Lauren Soubolsky
I INTRODUCTION
[1] This complaint arises in the circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic. At the time, the Province had mandated mask wearing in all public indoor spaces in response to the pandemic.
[2] Wosim Tahan alleges Costco Wholescale Canada Ltd. discriminated against him in the area of services on the ground of physical disability contrary to s. 8 of the Human Rights Code. He says he is unable to wear a mask because of disabilities and Costco did not allow him to shop because he was not wearing a mask.
[3] Sharon Tahan is Mr. Tahan’s spouse. She says she was with Mr. Tahan when he was told he needed to wear a mask. She says Costco discriminated against her in the area of services on the grounds of family status and marital status.
[4] Costco denies discriminating and applies to dismiss the complaint under s. 27(1)(c) of the Code. It argues that Mr. Tahan has no reasonable prospect of proving he has a disability related barrier to wearing a face covering or that he was denied services. It also argues Ms. Tahan has no reasonable prospect of proving she was adversely impacted in relation to her family or marital status.
[5] The Complainants did not respond to the dismissal application. The Tribunal set a schedule for submission by a letter dated September 11, 2025. The Respondents filed their application, sending a copy to the Complainants at their addresses for service on October 29, 2025. The Complainants did not provide a response by the deadline of December 3, 2025, or at all. I am satisfied the Complainants had notice of the application and an opportunity to file a response. I find there is no unfairness in making this decision on the materials before me.
[6] For the following reasons, I allow the application. To make this decision, I have considered all the information filed by the parties, including the dismissal application and the Complainants’ complaint forms and amendments. In these reasons, I only refer to what is necessary to explain my decision. I make no findings of fact.
II BACKGROUND
[7] In March 2020, the Province of British Columbia declared a state of emergency because of the COVID-19 pandemic. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, Costco adopted a mandatory mask policy for all employees and customers entering its stores beginning May 2020. The policy required everyone to wear a face mask or other face cover to prevent the spread of COVID-19 and protect the health and safety of people visiting Costco, and its employees. Costco exempted individuals who could not wear a face mask or covering due to a medical condition.
[8] Costco revised its mask policy in or around November 16, 2020, in response to the BC Centre for Disease Control’s report of increased number of COVID-19 cases. Medical exemptions were removed from the revised policy. People with medical conditions that prevented them from wearing a mask would be accommodated by:
a. wearing a face shield provided by Costco at no charge;
b. allowing a masked guest, such as a family member, to shop on behalf of the member with the member’s membership card;
c. making online purchases through Costco’s website;
d. making online purchases through Instacart, a third-party delivery service;
e. curbside pick-up for prescriptions; and
f. occasionally, assistance from a manger to shop personally for some customers.
[9] Mr. Tahan says he has chronic rhinitis and sleep apnea which prevents him from wearing a face mask.
[10] On December 21, 2020, Mr. Tahan and Ms. Tahan were shopping inside a Costco store. Ms. Tahan was wearing a face mask. Mr. Tahan was not. Costco employees informed Mr. Tahan protective face coverings were mandatory. Mr. Tahan said he had a medical exemption, refused to put on a face covering, and ultimately left the store with Ms. Tahan without completing their shopping.
III DECISION
[11] Costco applies to dismiss the complaint on the basis that it has no reasonable prospect of success: Code, s. 27(1)(c). The onus is on Costco to establish the basis for dismissal.
[12] Section 27(1)(c) is part of the Tribunal’s gate-keeping function. It allows the Tribunal to remove complaints which do not warrant the time and expense of a hearing.
[13] The Tribunal does not make findings of fact under s. 27(1)(c). Instead, the Tribunal looks at the evidence to decide whether “there is no reasonable prospect that findings of fact that would support the complaint could be made on a balance of probabilities after a full hearing of the evidence”: Berezoutskaia v. British Columbia (Human Rights Tribunal), 2006 BCCA 95 at para. 22, leave to appeal ref’d [2006] SCCA No. 171. The Tribunal must base its decision on the materials filed by the parties, and not on speculation about what evidence may be filed at the hearing: University of British Columbia v. Chan,2013 BCSC 942 at para. 77.
[14] A dismissal application is not the same as a hearing: Lord v. Fraser Health Authority,2021 BCSC 2176 at para. 20; SEPQA v. Canadian Human Rights Commission,1989 CanLII 44 (SCC), [1989] 2 SCR 879 at 899. The threshold to advance a complaint to a hearing is low. In a dismissal application, a complainant does not have to prove their complaint or show the Tribunal all the evidence they may introduce at a hearing. They only have to show that the evidence takes their complaint out of the realm of conjecture: Workers’ Compensation Appeal Tribunal v. Hill, 2011 BCCA 49 at para. 27.
[15] I deal first with Mr. Tahan’s allegation of discrimination.
[16] At a hearing, Mr. Tahan would have to establish that he has a disability, that Costco treated him adversely, and that the adverse treatment was connected to his physical disability: Moore v. BC (Education), 2012 SCC 61 at para. 33. Mr. Tahan is not required to prove the complaint at this time but need only point to some evidence capable of taking the complaint “out of the realm of conjecture”: Berezoutskaia at para. 24. The threshold to move the complaint forward to a hearing is low.
[17] Here, Costco says there is no evidence that Mr. Tahan has a disability that prevents him from wearing a face mask and his complaint has not been taken out of the realm of conjecture. I agree.
[18] Because Mr. Tahan has not filed a response to the dismissal application, there is nothing before me that supports his assertion that he was unable to wear a mask because of a disability. There is insufficient evidence before me that Mr. Tahan will be able to prove at a hearing that he has conditions that could be considered a disability for the purposes of the Code. Mr. Tahan says he has sleep apnea and chronic rhinitis. He has not explained how these conditions prevent a person from wearing a mask. Based on the materials I am persuaded that Mr. Tahan has no reasonable prospect of proving his conditions are a physical disability under the Code: Morris v. BC Rail, 2003 BCHRT 14.
[19] I next consider Ms. Tahan’s allegation. Ms. Tahan says after Mr. Tahan was told he could not shop without a face mask she left the store with him. It is undisputed that Ms. Tahan was wearing a mask when shopping in Costco and she was not asked to leave the store.
[20] Costco says Ms. Tahan has not alleged she suffered an adverse impact. It argues there is no reasonable prospect Ms. Tahan will be able to establish that she was denied a service based on family or martial status. I agree.
[21] Ms. Tahan has not alleged that accompanying Mr. Hasan while shopping constituted a family duty or obligation. She has also not alleged that she was denied a service because of her marital status. As I understand her allegation, Ms. Hasan says that her husband was told he needed to wear a face mask and the two of them left the store when Mr. Hasan refused to wear a mask. Based on the materials before me I am persuaded there is no reasonable prospect Ms. Tahan will be able to establish at a hearing that she suffered an adverse impact.
IV CONCLUSION
[22] I am satisfied there is no reasonable prospect the complaint will succeed. Accordingly, I dismiss the complaint pursuant to s. 27(1)(c) of the Code.
Edward Takayanagi
Tribunal Member