Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
B E T W E E N:
Graham Glanville Applicant
-and-
1212551 Ontario Ltd. o/a Tim Hortons Respondent
DECISION
Adjudicator: Brian Cook Date: September 4, 2015 Citation: 2015 HRTO 1182 Indexed as: Glanville v. 1212551 Ontario Ltd. o/a Tim Hortons
APPEARANCES
Graham Glanville, Applicant Christine Lundy, Paralegal
1212551 Ontario Ltd. o/a Tim Hortons, Respondent Frank Angeletti, Counsel
1This Application alleges discrimination with respect to services because of disability contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).
2The applicant is a person with a disability that requires him to use a mobility device. The respondent operates a Tim Hortons restaurant. On March 6, 2014 the applicant entered the restaurant riding a scooter. The scooter is a mobility device that the applicant requires for his disability. The applicant alleges that he was not permitted to bring his scooter into the restaurant and that he was therefore denied service because of his disability.
3The staff person who interacted with the applicant was Robin Meloche who was in charge of the restaurant at the time.
4The respondent denies that the applicant’s Code-protected rights were infringed. The respondent concedes that Ms. Meloche initially told the applicant that he could not bring the scooter into the restaurant but that this was because it was not initially clear that the scooter was a mobility device. The respondent asserts that when Ms. Meloche realized that the scooter was a mobility device she apologized to the applicant.
5The Application was heard in Windsor on June 2, 2015. I heard testimony from the applicant, a member of the public who witnessed the events at the restaurant, and Ms. Meloche. Both parties relied on video taken from the restaurant security system which was viewed at the hearing.
The Evidence
6The applicant testified that he has required a mobility device for most of his adult life as a result of a motor vehicle accident. He is able to walk for short distances but with difficulty. He uses a manual wheelchair and also has an electric scooter.
7On March 6, 2014, the applicant went to the respondent’s restaurant with a friend. He was riding his scooter. He entered the restaurant with his friend. As soon as he entered, a staff person (Ms. Meloche) told him that he could not bring the scooter into the restaurant because it was too big.
8The applicant testified that he said to Ms. Meloche “this is my transportation” but she still told him he had to leave. He backed the scooter out the door and went back outside. After a few minutes, he told his friend to stay with the scooter and he entered the restaurant walking. He testified that to walk without an aide such as a cane, he staggers and needs to hold on to something for support. The applicant’s evidence is supported by the video evidence which shows him entering the restaurant using the door and walls for support.
9The applicant agreed that he could have asked his friend to get the coffee but said that he wanted to make a point.
10He got to the counter and ordered two coffees from Ms. Meloche. He testified that he paid for the coffee and then asked how he was supposed to carry the coffee outside. Ms. Meloche said that she would help him. She carried the coffee. He walked to door with Ms. Meloche helping him a bit. His friend then helped him get back to the scooter.
11The applicant initially testified that Ms. Meloche never apologized. When it was pointed out that in his Reply to the respondent’s Response he said that Ms. Meloche did apologize, he said that while she might have apologized, he did not accept her apology or that he did not hear her apology. He said that they did not shake hands.
12The applicant was certain that he paid for the coffees and did not agree that the security video shows that he did not pay.
13In cross examination,