As service refusals make headlines, businesses usually at fault: experts
Two Canadian businesses that recently made headlines for refusing customers have learned the hard way that there are few circumstances in which they can legally deny service to a patron.
A teenage boy hoping to celebrate his 16th birthday at a Toronto cat café was reportedly refused entry unless he left his wheelchair outside, after the owners cited a no-wheels policy to ensure the cats’ safety.
A few days later, A&W Food Services of Canada Inc. apologized on Twitter after a location in Cardson, Alta., made headlines because an employee called the police on a customer who attempted to buy food for an elderly Indigenous woman.
Both incidents are troublesome, as one appears to discriminate on the grounds of gender and race, and the other on disability, said Margot Young, a professor at the University of British Columbia’s Allard School of Law. “We can’t kick people out because they make us uncomfortable,” she said.
Retailers under federal regulation cannot refuse service based on several prohibited grounds for discrimination, including race, religion, age, sexual orientation, marital status, and disability, according to the Canadian Human Rights Act. Those under provincial regulation face similar restrictions.
A&W promptly apologized on its Twitter account, saying it is “taking this incident very seriously and the franchisee is working with his staff to ensure they receive the training and support they need to do the right thing.”
The burger chain is reaching out to the woman who was denied service to see how it can assist her, it said. The company did not respond to a request for further comment
Meow Cat Cafe, meanwhile, closed its doors Aug. 10 and doubled down on its right to deny entry to customers with mobility devices in the name of animal safety.
In a two-page note shared by users on social media they say was posted on the cafe’s front door, the company said people in wheelchairs came in Friday and “slightly or badly hurt” some of the cats.
No one from the company answered the phone Wednesday. The company did not respond to an email request for comment.
An employee at Vancouver’s Catfe said the shop allows people with wheelchairs into the café and has never experienced any injuries to the felines as a result.
It would be discriminatory to assume that if one wheelchairbound person hurt a cat, all people in wheelchairs are a danger to felines, said David Baker, a lawyer at Toronto’s Bakerlaw. “You don’t lump everybody together,” he said.
It’s a retailer’s responsibility to accommodate people unless they can prove it causes them undue hardship, Young said. The cat café, for example, could have found a way to move the cats into another room while the teen entered and exited the space to avoid an accident.
A whale-watching tour operator, on the other hand, could possibly cite inordinate financial costs to safely transport someone in a wheelchair in a small boat on rough seas, she said.
Additionally, retailers can ask patrons to leave if they would endanger people or cause significant damage, Young said. For example, staff may be within their right to ask someone throwing chairs or urinating in the corner of a restaurant to exit the premises. But context and details matter, she added, noting it’s important not to simply assume people from certain ethnic groups will cause disruptions.
In some cases, it is possible to deny service to people based on age, gender or other protected grounds. Bars and convenience stores are obligated not to sell alcohol and cigarettes to minors, and some eateries may put a sign that says “no shirt, no shoes, no service.”
That exclusion is not based on any of the grounds protected by the human rights code, said Baker.
Such a decision may also come down to health and hygiene reasons, said Young.