A man sued an exclusive Vancouver club for thousands of dollars after he was barred from it for not complying with a rule requiring proof of a vaccination against COVID-19.

But Saul Kahn didn鈥檛 get the results he was looking for after the B.C. Civil Resolution Tribunal dismissed his claim against the Arbutus Club.

Kahn had been a member of the Arbutus Club for about 20 years after paying an entrance fee of $22,500. The Arbutus Club offers an assortment of services, including sports like tennis, spa treatments and fine dining.

Kahn was paying monthly dues of $250.22. But then the club barred Kahn from Sept. 13, 2021 to April 8, 2022 because he refused to provide proof of COVID-19 vaccination for himself.

鈥淢r. Kahn says the Club acted in an unfairly prejudicial manner by barring members who did not provide proof of vaccination against COVID-19. I note that Mr. Kahn frames his claim more broadly to be about 鈥榗onfidential medical information including proof of vaccination鈥� but does not make any allegations about anything other than proof of vaccination.鈥�

Kahn was looking for a refund of $1,939.12 for a refund of his dues during this period, plus $1,000 in interest the club was 鈥渦njustly enriched鈥� by after barring him. Kahn also sued so the Arbutus Club would stop barring other members over not providing confidential medical information, including proof of vaccination. Kahn also wanted names and emails of anyone who was also barred from the club, or that the club would contact those members and ask them to email Kahn.

鈥淭he Club disagrees,鈥� said the CRT ruling. 鈥淚t says the Provincial Health Officer鈥檚 (PHO) orders required it to temporarily check for proof of vaccination before allowing members access to its facilities. It denies acting in an unfairly prejudicial manner.鈥�

The club also said the CRT lacks jurisdiction over this matter.

Kahn, according to the CRT, wasn鈥檛 the only person who objected to the club asking for proof of vaccination as a group hired a lawyer to fight it.

The CRT ruling says the Arbutus Club correctly enforced a public health order.

鈥淚 find the Club鈥檚 policy was a fair resolution of conflicting interests. As noted in the PHO鈥檚 order, the Club had an obligation to verify proof of vaccination for persons entering its place. The Club essentially interpreted 鈥榩lace鈥� to mean the entire building, rather than parts of it. I find the Club鈥檚 interpretation was reasonable, particularly as the order鈥檚 purpose was to impede the spread of an infectious disease.鈥�

Kahn offered some suggestions to keep unvaccinated club members out of certain areas, including the 鈥渦se of distinctive wristbands and facial recognition software paired with security cameras.鈥�

The CRT was unpersuaded by the feasibility of this.

The CRT noted that Kahn had tried to convince the club that the COVID-19 vaccines were ineffective.

鈥淢r. Kahn says that the PHO鈥檚 order was itself unnecessary and 鈥榮cientifically unwarranted.鈥� In particular, he says that in January 2022 he emailed the Club about a group of individuals in Antarctica that showed vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 were ineffective.鈥�

鈥淲ith respect, I find that Mr. Kahn could not reasonably expect the Club to prefer his conclusions over the PHO鈥檚,鈥� the ruling said.

In the end, the CRT dismissed Kahn鈥檚 claims.