Important Question For BC Human Rights Tribunal Regarding Masking

[Editor’s Note: The following email exchange between social justice advocate Marcie Crozier and the unknown respondent from the BC Human Rights Tribunal is important in order to further understand how these so-called “Human Rights” organizations function on both the provincial level and the federal. My own personal experience with the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal and its attendant Canadian Human Rights Commission over the course of 5 years beginning back in 2007 and running through to 2011 revealed that their primary modus operandi is to protect and defend whatever the state decrees in terms of governmental policies be they fair or biased. When it comes to issues such as employment their usefulness is evident but when it comes to more serious matters such as freedom of speech and especially now, the critical governmental policies concerning the massive, global Covid-19 Scamdemic, these commissions and tribunals tend to show their true colours which inevitably reveal to the inquiring eye the red emblem of the hammer and sickle.

The email exchanges between Marcie Crozier and the bureaucrats manning the BCHRT ramparts will illustrate this succinctly.]

Initial Email from Marcie Crozier to BC Human Rights Tribunal on April 14, 2021

From: Marcia Crozier <>
Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 2:21 PM
To: BC Human Rights Tribunal AG:EX <>
Cc: Kyllo.MLA, Greg LASS:EX <>; Henry, Bonnie HLTH:EX <>; Farnworth.MLA, Mike LASS:EX <>

Subject: Important Question Regarding Masking

Dear Sir/Madame,

Attached please find the section on the CDC website which states that masks are a medical device.  The contents of the screen shot can be found at:

I note that the Human Rights Tribunal is advising that people who are filing a mask complaint are required to produce medical evidence/a doctor’s note to support their medical exemption claim.

Given that masks are a medical device and therefore require informed consent for use, on what basis can the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal decline any claim for masking violations when, in fact, people have every right to decline a medical procedure?  Stated another way: if I determine that a medical procedure causes harm, there’s my medical exemption.

I look forward to your response.

Marcie Crozier

Response to Marcie Crozier from BC Human Rights Tribunal on April 15, 2021

Dear Participant:

If an individual has a disability which prevents them from wearing a face mask and a business refuses to accommodate them, they can file a human rights complaint.

An online version and print version of the complaint form is available at the following URL:

Please see the attached link for more information on mask wearing and human rights:

The BC Human Rights Code prohibits discrimination in regard to services available to the public in Section 8. If you believe that you have been discriminated against because of one of the prohibited grounds, you may file a complaint. You can file a complaint online, or you may fax or mail the complaint to the Tribunal. There is a one year time limit to file a complaint.

Please also see the information on “Human Rights in Services, Facilities, Accommodations” at the following URL:

The Tribunal is the body which makes decisions on complaints and cannot act for any of the parties involved, or give them legal advice. It does not have the power to investigate complaints. It screens complaints to see that they are complete and are within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction and then it serves them on the parties complained about. It offers free mediation services to see if the problems can be resolved by agreement. If not, it holds a hearing and the parties present evidence through the testimony of witnesses.

Human Rights Code: Section 8:

Discrimination in Accommodation, Service and Facility

8 (1) A person must not, without a bona fide and reasonable justification,

(a) deny to a person or class of persons any accommodation, service or facility customarily available to the public, or

(b) discriminate against a person or class of persons regarding any accommodation, service or facility customarily available to the public because of the race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, religion, marital status, family status, physical or mental disability, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, or age of that person or class of persons.

(2) A person does not contravene this section by discriminating

(a) on the basis of sex, if the discrimination relates to the maintenance of public decency or to the determination of premiums or benefits under contracts of life or health insurance, or

(b) on the basis of physical or mental disability or age, if the discrimination relates to the determination of premiums or benefits under contracts of life or health insurance.


If you need free advice regarding human rights, you may contact the BC Human Rights Clinic: 604-622-1100 or toll free at 1-855-685-6222.

If you need free advice regarding human rights in Victoria: The Law Centre: 250-385-1221

Access/Pro Bono Society of BC: 604-878-7400 or toll-free:

UBC Law Students’ Legal Advice Program: 604-822-5791



Reply to BC Human Rights Tribunal from Marcie Crozier on April 29, 2021

From: Marcia Crozier<>

To: bchumanrightstribunal<>

Cc:, Bonnie.Henry<>,, cbcnewsvancouver<>, okanagan<>, news<>, newsroom<>, Arthur Topham<>, TANYA GAW<>

Dear Sir/Madame,

Thank-you for your April 15, 2021 e-mail, however your response does not address the question that was asked:  Given that masks are a medical device and therefore require informed consent for use, on what basis can the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal decline any claim for masking violations when, in fact, people have every right to decline a medical procedure?  I would assert that the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal’s requirement for claimants to provide facts around their medical condition is completely unlawful.

In case you were unaware, Health Canada confirms that masks are a medical device: Canada’s Medical Devices Regulations state:  “11 (1) A medical device…shall not, when used for the medical conditions, purposes or uses for which it is manufactured, sold or represented, adversely affect the health or safety of a patient, user or other person, except to the extent that a possible adverse effect of the device constitutes an acceptable risk when weighed against the benefits to the patient and the risk is compatible with a high level of protection of health and safety.”  

Dr. Bonnie Henry herself confirms in a court of law that masks do not provide a “high level of protection and safety” (as is required under the Medical Devices Regulation):  “…there’s not a lot of evidence to support mask use and that’s why it is a secondary measure…there’s very scant evidence about the value of masks in preventing the transmission of influenza…”.  Dr. Henry’s comments can be found on Page 57, sxn 178 of this case  Were you aware that Dr. Henry did not make the mask Order in British Columbia?  Instead, Mike Farnworth signed the order (he is not a medical doctor):

This recently published, high quality article which reviewed 44 mask studies irrefutably confirms that masks are damaging physiologically, psychologically and socially:, confirming that the current mask mandate in British Columbia is going against Health Canada’s requirement that medical devices shall not adversely affect the health of the wearer.

Are you sure the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal should continue insisting that claimants provide proof of a medical/psychological condition which prevents them from wearing a mask?  I would assert that anyone who claims they are exempt does not have to provide further evidence, given that masks are medical devices and interventions, AND that they do in fact cause much harm.  (If you are able to provide high quality evidence to the contrary, please do so.)

I would even go further to say that the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal is going against the Nuremberg code by denying any Human Rights submissions where claimants state they are medically exempt from mask wearing: it is clear we are all exempt if we so declare it.  For your reference, the Nuremberg code, which is embedded in Canadian law, is very clear about the importance of informed consent (see below, where the ten elements of the Nuremberg code relating to medical devices are listed).  The only other time in human history that mass masking mandates occurred was during the so called Spanish flu:, and Dr. Fauci’s study confirms that it wasn’t the flu that killed large numbers of people during this time, but instead bacterial pneumonia:  It doesn’t take an expert to conclude that mask wearing likely had much to do with these bacterial pneumonias! 

In the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal’s March 31, 2021 ruling in File:CS‐002206, Steven Adamson dismisses the applicant’s submission involving her inability to wear a mask: Mr. Adamson states:  “The Customer has not set out facts that, if proved, could establish that she has a physical or mental disability that was a factor in this adverse impact.”  I believe this ruling and all others like it, should be reviewed and overturned, given the fact that masks are medical devices requiring informed consent, they don’t provide a high level of protection, and in fact, they do harm.  If someone chooses to wear a mask, by all means, that is their choice, but any requirement to provide proof for not wearing a mask is just not backed up by any law/legislation, and in fact goes against Canadian law.

In conclusion, the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal should be removing their requirement for claimants to provide any sort of medical proof of an adverse impact related to mask wearing for the reasons set out above.


Marcie Crozier


Nuremberg Code:

1. The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, over-reaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision. This latter element requires that before the acceptance of an affirmative decision by the experimental subject there should be made known to him the nature, duration, and purpose of the experiment; the method and means by which it is to be conducted; all inconveniences and hazards reasonable to be expected; and the effects upon his health or person which may possibly come from his participation in the experiment.

The duty and responsibility for ascertaining the quality of the consent rests upon each individual who initiates, directs or engages in the experiment. It is a personal duty and responsibility which may not be delegated to another with impunity.

2. The experiment should be such as to yield fruitful results for the good of society, unprocurable by other methods or means of study, and not random and unnecessary in nature.

3. The experiment should be so designed and based on the results of animal experimentation and a knowledge of the natural history of the disease or other problem under study that the anticipated results will justify the performance of the experiment.

4. The experiment should be so conducted as to avoid all unnecessary physical and mental suffering and injury.

5. No experiment should be conducted where there is an a priori reason to believe that death or disabling injury will occur; except, perhaps, in those experiments where the experimental physicians also serve as subjects.

6. The degree of risk to be taken should never exceed that determined by the humanitarian importance of the problem to be solved by the experiment.

7. Proper preparations should be made and adequate facilities provided to protect the experimental subject against even remote possibilities of injury, disability, or death.

8. The experiment should be conducted only by scientifically qualified persons. The highest degree of skill and care should be required through all stages of the experiment of those who conduct or engage in the experiment.

9. During the course of the experiment the human subject should be at liberty to bring the experiment to an end if he has reached the physical or mental state where continuation of the experiment seems to him to be impossible.

10. During the course of the experiment the scientist in charge must be prepared to terminate the experiment at any stage, if he has probable cause to believe, in the exercise of the good faith, superior skill and careful judgment required of him that a continuation of the experiment is likely to result in injury, disability, or death to the experimental subject.