A B.C. man who says a fellow moviegoer's cellphone use in a theatre triggered his post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) will have his case heard at the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal.
The complainant, known as 'The Patron' in the tribunal's Feb. 24 decision, alleges discrimination based on disability against Landmark Cinemas Canada.
The complaint stemmed from a September 2019 trip to the movies when a fellow moviegoer was using their phone inside the theatre. The woman refused to get off the phone when asked by the man.
"He says the other customer verbally attacked him in response to his requests that she stop using her phone," tribunal member Ryan Goldvine said in the decision.
So, he complained to a staff member.
The man claimed the employee did not deal with the situation appropriately.
"The patron says he has a disability, post-traumatic stress disorder," Goldvine wrote. "He says that he was denied a service customarily available to the public and was discriminated against in relation to that service."
The man claimed that, due to his PTSD, he could not continue to watch the movie while the other customer was present.
He then told two theatre managers he had PTSD and asked them to accommodate his disability by removing the other customer so that he could return and continue watching the movie.
"When the managers declined to remove the other customer, the patron responded that he felt he was effectively being kicked out because he could not return while the other customer remained," Goldvine said. "The patron then left the theatre and went to his car where he waited for his wife."
He said he went to his car, had "a full-blown post-traumatic stress episode," and phoned his psychologist for support.
His wife spoke to the manager and accepted refunds on the tickets and complimentary movie passes for another day.
Landmark told the tribunal that company policy is that employees observing disruptive behaviour should notify a manager. That person would then decide whether or not to remove the offender.
"The respondent says it declined to remove the other customer from the screening as the other customer had put away her phone," Goldvine said.
Landmark applied to have the complaint dismissed, something Goldvine declined to do.
"Based on the whole of the evidence before me, I am satisfied that the allegation that the Patron was denied a service generally available to the public is beyond the realm of conjecture," he said.
The patron provided a medical note saying the situation has continued to be a source of anxious preoccupation, triggered PTSD symptoms and exacerbated his social anxiety, depression and isolation.
The company said it discharged its duty to accommodate the man by offering reasonable accommodations that were rejected. And, it said, it had reasonable justification for declining to remove the other customer as requested by the patron.
Landmark said the complaint should be dismissed because it is reasonably certain to establish both of those aspects of its defence at a hearing.
"(Landmark) submits that what was sought by the Patron was not an accommodation, but retribution or punishment of the other customer," Goldvine said.
