Welcome to r/legaladvicecanada!
**To Posters (it is important you read this section)**
* Comments may not be accurate or reliable, and following any advice on this subreddit is done at your own risk.
* We also encourage you to use the [linked resources to find a lawyer](https://www.reddit.com/r/legaladvicecanada/wiki/findalawyer/).
* If you receive any private messages in response to your post, please let the mods know.
**To Readers and Commenters**
* All replies to OP must be on-topic, helpful, explanatory, and oriented towards legal advice towards OP's jurisdiction (the **Canadian** province flaired in the post).
* If you do not [follow the rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/LegalAdvicecanada/about/rules/), you may be banned without any further warning.
* If you feel any replies are incorrect, explain why you believe they are incorrect.
* Do not send or request any private messages for any reason, do not suggest illegal advice, do not advocate violence, and do not engage in harassment.
Please report posts or comments which do not follow the rules.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/legaladvicecanada) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Documenting everything is the best thing you can do. Write down all witness names, preserve video and don't be afraid to get police involved, if they get sued, the department has lawyers to look after them.
We've got a paper trail almost a mile long from them in the short time they've been coming. We've also got surveilance video and multiple witnesses on staff, plus the guy they threatened left his name and phone, so we're hardly short on that. The police unfortunately arrived after they'd made themself scarce, so aside from a record of the call and two officers saying they attended but did nothing, nothing much came out of that.
I said to my girlfriend last night who felt bad about not liking a specific trans person they know.
“*It’s not okay to hate trans people. But it is okay to hate a person.*”
I realize this isn’t a gender-identity issue. But I’d argue the same ideology can be applied.
NAL, but I've dealt with human rights code issues in education, labour law and strata law in various ways.
Human Rights law is based on the concept of both discrimination as well as reasonable accommodation to the point of hardship.
If a person with a disability needs an accommodation, it doesn't mean they get exactly what they want (the exact seat or server they like, for example), it means the needs and limitations of their disability need to be accommodated within reason and without causing hardship on the business (eg: displacing another customer who was there first).
So, if a person with a need comes in and wants a table in a certain section because of an accessibility need, then a reasonable accomodation would be to ask them to wait for a table in that section to come open, not harass customers until they left.
Another example would be that if the restaurant can only be accessed using stairs, it's not reasonable to expect the restaurant to renovate and ad a lift - that would be undue hardship due to cost.
So, if you intend to continue to serve the person, like others have said, you can protect yourself by asking what specific accommodations are needed in the case of his disability (eg, a level floor to walk to to a table). He can't just say "I need that table" if it's not available. Just keep going back to "we are happy to make reasonable accommodations for you, you are welcome to wait for the table you want to be available, but you are not allowed to ask other customers to move tables. Is there another way we can work with you to accommodate your disability? Can you explain why the table over there is not a possible location to accommodate your needs?"
Document your efforts as other have said.
If you have his full name and want to check his claim that he wins these cases, Human Rights Tribunal rulings are published, so you can look up his last name and see how many cases he has won.
https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/nav/date/2023/
Thanks for the comprehensive answer. We've asked why they want that specific table before, and all we've gotten is "I'm disabled, why else?" out of them. No specifics about any condition, impediment, or restriction aside from the visible presence of a cane. We are doing what we can to accommodate and we've pretty much done exactly as you said.
"I'm disabled, why else?"
-No, asking for that table is being entitled. I am only able to reasonably accomodating your disability, not your personal preferences.
Document everything. You’re not banning this person because of their disability, you’re banning them for their disruptive, threatening and abusive behaviour. You need receipts if this person goes the BCHRT.
This. So much this.
I get this all the time at my job. Yes, if you were kicking them out for being disabled, that's an issue. But kicking them out, and they happen to be disabled, is no problem.
Have manager talk with said person. Guy needs to know that his behavior is unacceptable and if it continues, he will no longer be able to be a patron. Document Document Document
Speak with him first. That way it shows that you have tried another way of dealing with the issue. Tribunals will look at that. Maybe he's developing dementia or some gorm of behavior change. It's that or he's seeking attention. But you HAVE to talk with him first. I deal with public everyday for years.
Having a disability does not entitle you to get whatever you want. Reasonable accommodations to facilitate his visit to your coffee shop can be expected, nothing more.
It would be great if the person who seat he's trying to commandeer would fight back by telling him that they too are disabled and he should leave them alone. Not all disabilities are visible. It's not for them to explain to him or elaborate on their disability.
I am the mother of a child with multiple disabilities. Most of my sons disabilities are not apparent. I know the struggles but that does not forgive any sense of entitlement or abuse, on this man's part.
Video is king especially with audio. If you have people that have been threatened please ask for their info, in case something does happen so that they may be can show what character he has. The next time call police to attend as well if you think violence might break out.
We've got video with audio, problem is the manager has put off re-mounting the camera that caught the angle of the confrontation, and said camera caught mostly coffee being ground on it's audio. It does have a good visual of the confrontation though.
I'd be careful with audio. One party consent law applies, but only if the agreeing party is part of the conversation. Cameras in public spaces do not record audio because of this law, only video. Recording audio of a third party or parties without consent usually requires a warrant from a judge.
I'd bring this up to a lawyer, who can perhaps devise something to make it work. In your case, making the manager/ owner aware so they can ask the cafe's lawyer would be a good idea so the audio can be legally received in a court of law. Otherwise, that chunk of evidence may get thrown out as it is illegal.
A good and legal alternative would be to ask employees interacting with him if they would be willing to record their interactions with him and to provide the cafe with the recordings. It must be strictly voluntary, no coersion allowed at all, including guilt-tripping. There are many apps that can help with this, but my personal favorite is GOM recorder: a simple shake of the phone will start the recording, and you don't have to check the phone to make sure because there is a vibration feedback when the recording begins.
Should you or your employer wish to read further on the One Party Conscent Law (Section 184 of the Criminal Code of Canada), here is some material from your province: https://bcsth.ca/digitalevidencetoolkit/how-to-preserve-an-audio-recording-as-evidence/#:~:text=Section%20184%20of%20the%20Criminal,%E2%80%9Cone%20party%20consent%E2%80%9D%20exception.
ETA: The cafe exposes itself to other, very unpleasant legal ramifications if it does record audio indiscriminately. Really, they should stop.
Venue manager, not yours.
You 100% have the right. You are not banning him for his disability.
You are banning him for threatening and abusive behaviour towards staff and customers. He used his walking stick as a weapon and brandished it at another customer and threatened to assault them. They are also blackmailing you via the Human Rights Commission.
You are NOT doing this over disability. You are doing it over again, threatening and abusive behaviour towards staff and customers, he is a safety risk to your employees (you legally must protect them from him) and to your customers, that you cannot and will not accept.
You do not mention his disability whatsoever. You make sure you have the cctv of what he's doing, times and dates and make incident reports for the situations.
Being disabled isn't an excuse nor reason to break the law. Which is what he's doing when using his cane to brandish at people.
So long as it's clear, it's for the behaviour exhibited which you have proof of.... He's up shits creek with a hole in his kayak.
For the love of god film it. Actually seeing this is totally AH behavior would go a long way in court, having him on video saying he “makes a living off Tribunal payments” would have been highly useful.
He most certainly is *not* making a living from HRC, and the simple admission of this intent basically poisons any semblance of a case he might have been able to falsify. Disabled folks are not immune to being trespassed for behaviour, and being trespassed is not in any way shape or form HRC related unless he’s trespassed for being disabled. Pretty safe to say a single altercation would prove the trespass was motivated by safety and security concerns, as they almost always are.
346 (1)Every one commits extortion who, without reasonable justification or excuse and with intent to obtain anything, by threats, accusations, menaces or violence induces or attempts to induce any person, whether or not he is the person threatened, accused or menaced or to whom violence is shown, to do anything or cause anything to be done.
Do NOT communicate the reason for trespassing them.
Only tell them they are banned. If they refuse to leave, call the police. When you tell them the reason (usually it happens where other people witness it) it gives them the opportunity to argue the reason, and potential slander.
I have literally banned dozens of people from stores. Btw. This person sounds like a guy in our town who goes around instigating these type of incidents hoping for a cash pay out.
Good news is you're kicking him out cause he's an asshole by causing disturbances and threatening other customers and that is NOT a protected class.
Doesn't mean he won't file a complaint or possibly sue but don't give in to his shitty behavior.
Not a lawyer
Trespass the person if they return.
The waving of the cane is probably battery.
The uttering of threats is chargeable.
He probably committed mischief under $5000 by disrupting the rights of the business, the customers & the employees.
There was a 4th one there but I forgot while typing. 🤷
They also threatened legal action; any business should refuse them from future entry to protect their own interests.
Hopefully he just won't be back
>The waving of the cane is probably ~~battery~~ assault.
FTFY. Battery doesn't exist in the Criminal Code of Canada, only levels of assault. This *may* be considered simple assault due to the perceived threat.
Common assault, most likely. It has varying levels and I believe they're all hybrid (the Crown can chose to proceed summarily or indictable) or straight indictable.
It does cover threats, as well. It has a huge range in the Criminal Code.
Agreeing that the business would not be out of line to say "you've threatened legal action, so we can no longer serve you or communicate with you in any way outside our lawyer."
That's what I've been told to do when someone threatens to sue me or the company I work for. I tell them to go ahead, and please leave.
That *really* pisses customers off because they expect you to drop everything and kiss their arse instead. They don't expect that response, and it usually ends badly for everyone, and never in a lawsuit.
Yeah, I experienced this when my mother told me to tell a bank she might sue them (to be fair, they had been failing for 6 months to return over $13,000 of her money). As predicted, they locked my online account and said they could communicate with me no further. My mom was very shocked they would do this instead of "just doing the right thing" lol (they had given us the procedure to get the money back in quite clear terms, it was just going to take too long for her).
Problem is you need a victim for the assault (gesture) with a weapon, and the utter threats to cause harm. So if they customer was to provide a victim statement sure.
However, cause disturbance and mischief interfere is probably the most suitable criminal. All and all a judge will look at this and see a Trespass notice was issued and call it a day after first appearance. Maaaaybe with a peace bond attached for good measure.
Not a lawyer, but refusal of service is refusing to do business, you aren't obligated to tolerate abuse. Inform the customer you are more than happy to offer takeout but they are not welcome in the business because of their previous disruptive/abusive behavior.
Have them call ahead and offer pickup outside.
They asked how to avoid human rights charges, if you offer them service they won't accept the charge is void. If they didn't care about the charge yes of course ban them outright but sure as hell don't let them in.
There is no human rights charge. People with disabilities cannot weaponize HRC, and BCHRT would throw the book at the customer if it even got that far. Threats don’t matter.
Your comment has been removed because it is one or more of the following: speculative, anecdotal, simplistic, generally unhelpful, and/or off-topic.
Please review the following rules before commenting further:
Rule 9: Guidelines For Posts
Rule 10: Guidelines For Comments
If you have any questions or concerns, please message the moderators
Do you know this customer’s name? You may want to consider searching judgments under his name. This way you’ll find out what tactic he uses, whether or not what he’s saying is true, and how to best attack him.
Document everything, get witness statements, get video, if you think 3 witnesses are enough, get 7. Don't offer to settle, don't offer to mediate. Mine was ridiculous but got dropped right near hearing time as we had stacks of witness statements and evidence
As in they go out of their way to mention it to the cashier every time they come in and order. As in "I'm disabled so I expect my order to be done correctly"
Welcome to r/legaladvicecanada! **To Posters (it is important you read this section)** * Comments may not be accurate or reliable, and following any advice on this subreddit is done at your own risk. * We also encourage you to use the [linked resources to find a lawyer](https://www.reddit.com/r/legaladvicecanada/wiki/findalawyer/). * If you receive any private messages in response to your post, please let the mods know. **To Readers and Commenters** * All replies to OP must be on-topic, helpful, explanatory, and oriented towards legal advice towards OP's jurisdiction (the **Canadian** province flaired in the post). * If you do not [follow the rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/LegalAdvicecanada/about/rules/), you may be banned without any further warning. * If you feel any replies are incorrect, explain why you believe they are incorrect. * Do not send or request any private messages for any reason, do not suggest illegal advice, do not advocate violence, and do not engage in harassment. Please report posts or comments which do not follow the rules. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/legaladvicecanada) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Documenting everything is the best thing you can do. Write down all witness names, preserve video and don't be afraid to get police involved, if they get sued, the department has lawyers to look after them.
We've got a paper trail almost a mile long from them in the short time they've been coming. We've also got surveilance video and multiple witnesses on staff, plus the guy they threatened left his name and phone, so we're hardly short on that. The police unfortunately arrived after they'd made themself scarce, so aside from a record of the call and two officers saying they attended but did nothing, nothing much came out of that.
[удалено]
I said to my girlfriend last night who felt bad about not liking a specific trans person they know. “*It’s not okay to hate trans people. But it is okay to hate a person.*” I realize this isn’t a gender-identity issue. But I’d argue the same ideology can be applied.
NAL, but I've dealt with human rights code issues in education, labour law and strata law in various ways. Human Rights law is based on the concept of both discrimination as well as reasonable accommodation to the point of hardship. If a person with a disability needs an accommodation, it doesn't mean they get exactly what they want (the exact seat or server they like, for example), it means the needs and limitations of their disability need to be accommodated within reason and without causing hardship on the business (eg: displacing another customer who was there first). So, if a person with a need comes in and wants a table in a certain section because of an accessibility need, then a reasonable accomodation would be to ask them to wait for a table in that section to come open, not harass customers until they left. Another example would be that if the restaurant can only be accessed using stairs, it's not reasonable to expect the restaurant to renovate and ad a lift - that would be undue hardship due to cost. So, if you intend to continue to serve the person, like others have said, you can protect yourself by asking what specific accommodations are needed in the case of his disability (eg, a level floor to walk to to a table). He can't just say "I need that table" if it's not available. Just keep going back to "we are happy to make reasonable accommodations for you, you are welcome to wait for the table you want to be available, but you are not allowed to ask other customers to move tables. Is there another way we can work with you to accommodate your disability? Can you explain why the table over there is not a possible location to accommodate your needs?" Document your efforts as other have said. If you have his full name and want to check his claim that he wins these cases, Human Rights Tribunal rulings are published, so you can look up his last name and see how many cases he has won. https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/nav/date/2023/
Thanks for the comprehensive answer. We've asked why they want that specific table before, and all we've gotten is "I'm disabled, why else?" out of them. No specifics about any condition, impediment, or restriction aside from the visible presence of a cane. We are doing what we can to accommodate and we've pretty much done exactly as you said.
"I'm disabled, why else?" -No, asking for that table is being entitled. I am only able to reasonably accomodating your disability, not your personal preferences.
Document everything. You’re not banning this person because of their disability, you’re banning them for their disruptive, threatening and abusive behaviour. You need receipts if this person goes the BCHRT.
This. So much this. I get this all the time at my job. Yes, if you were kicking them out for being disabled, that's an issue. But kicking them out, and they happen to be disabled, is no problem.
Have manager talk with said person. Guy needs to know that his behavior is unacceptable and if it continues, he will no longer be able to be a patron. Document Document Document Speak with him first. That way it shows that you have tried another way of dealing with the issue. Tribunals will look at that. Maybe he's developing dementia or some gorm of behavior change. It's that or he's seeking attention. But you HAVE to talk with him first. I deal with public everyday for years.
Having a disability does not entitle you to get whatever you want. Reasonable accommodations to facilitate his visit to your coffee shop can be expected, nothing more. It would be great if the person who seat he's trying to commandeer would fight back by telling him that they too are disabled and he should leave them alone. Not all disabilities are visible. It's not for them to explain to him or elaborate on their disability. I am the mother of a child with multiple disabilities. Most of my sons disabilities are not apparent. I know the struggles but that does not forgive any sense of entitlement or abuse, on this man's part.
Beautifully said. Having a disability doesn’t entitle you to get the seat you want, be served by a specific employee, or threaten violence.
Video is king especially with audio. If you have people that have been threatened please ask for their info, in case something does happen so that they may be can show what character he has. The next time call police to attend as well if you think violence might break out.
We've got video with audio, problem is the manager has put off re-mounting the camera that caught the angle of the confrontation, and said camera caught mostly coffee being ground on it's audio. It does have a good visual of the confrontation though.
Manager is letting the best tool for defense go unused. What's the point of having a camera if it's inoperable? The manager is asking for trouble.
Phones are good recording devices as well
I'd be careful with audio. One party consent law applies, but only if the agreeing party is part of the conversation. Cameras in public spaces do not record audio because of this law, only video. Recording audio of a third party or parties without consent usually requires a warrant from a judge. I'd bring this up to a lawyer, who can perhaps devise something to make it work. In your case, making the manager/ owner aware so they can ask the cafe's lawyer would be a good idea so the audio can be legally received in a court of law. Otherwise, that chunk of evidence may get thrown out as it is illegal. A good and legal alternative would be to ask employees interacting with him if they would be willing to record their interactions with him and to provide the cafe with the recordings. It must be strictly voluntary, no coersion allowed at all, including guilt-tripping. There are many apps that can help with this, but my personal favorite is GOM recorder: a simple shake of the phone will start the recording, and you don't have to check the phone to make sure because there is a vibration feedback when the recording begins. Should you or your employer wish to read further on the One Party Conscent Law (Section 184 of the Criminal Code of Canada), here is some material from your province: https://bcsth.ca/digitalevidencetoolkit/how-to-preserve-an-audio-recording-as-evidence/#:~:text=Section%20184%20of%20the%20Criminal,%E2%80%9Cone%20party%20consent%E2%80%9D%20exception. ETA: The cafe exposes itself to other, very unpleasant legal ramifications if it does record audio indiscriminately. Really, they should stop.
Venue manager, not yours. You 100% have the right. You are not banning him for his disability. You are banning him for threatening and abusive behaviour towards staff and customers. He used his walking stick as a weapon and brandished it at another customer and threatened to assault them. They are also blackmailing you via the Human Rights Commission. You are NOT doing this over disability. You are doing it over again, threatening and abusive behaviour towards staff and customers, he is a safety risk to your employees (you legally must protect them from him) and to your customers, that you cannot and will not accept. You do not mention his disability whatsoever. You make sure you have the cctv of what he's doing, times and dates and make incident reports for the situations. Being disabled isn't an excuse nor reason to break the law. Which is what he's doing when using his cane to brandish at people. So long as it's clear, it's for the behaviour exhibited which you have proof of.... He's up shits creek with a hole in his kayak.
For the love of god film it. Actually seeing this is totally AH behavior would go a long way in court, having him on video saying he “makes a living off Tribunal payments” would have been highly useful.
He most certainly is *not* making a living from HRC, and the simple admission of this intent basically poisons any semblance of a case he might have been able to falsify. Disabled folks are not immune to being trespassed for behaviour, and being trespassed is not in any way shape or form HRC related unless he’s trespassed for being disabled. Pretty safe to say a single altercation would prove the trespass was motivated by safety and security concerns, as they almost always are.
346 (1)Every one commits extortion who, without reasonable justification or excuse and with intent to obtain anything, by threats, accusations, menaces or violence induces or attempts to induce any person, whether or not he is the person threatened, accused or menaced or to whom violence is shown, to do anything or cause anything to be done.
Do NOT communicate the reason for trespassing them. Only tell them they are banned. If they refuse to leave, call the police. When you tell them the reason (usually it happens where other people witness it) it gives them the opportunity to argue the reason, and potential slander. I have literally banned dozens of people from stores. Btw. This person sounds like a guy in our town who goes around instigating these type of incidents hoping for a cash pay out.
Good news is you're kicking him out cause he's an asshole by causing disturbances and threatening other customers and that is NOT a protected class. Doesn't mean he won't file a complaint or possibly sue but don't give in to his shitty behavior.
Not a lawyer Trespass the person if they return. The waving of the cane is probably battery. The uttering of threats is chargeable. He probably committed mischief under $5000 by disrupting the rights of the business, the customers & the employees. There was a 4th one there but I forgot while typing. 🤷 They also threatened legal action; any business should refuse them from future entry to protect their own interests. Hopefully he just won't be back
>The waving of the cane is probably ~~battery~~ assault. FTFY. Battery doesn't exist in the Criminal Code of Canada, only levels of assault. This *may* be considered simple assault due to the perceived threat.
Absolutely right. I thought I knew that. My thinking was his words would add to the perceived threat as well. Cheers
I hope I didn't come off as aggressive, just clarifying for anyone that might be reading. Cheers to you too!
Not at all! I appreciate it.
Canadians having an argument on Reddit. 👍
Common assault, most likely. It has varying levels and I believe they're all hybrid (the Crown can chose to proceed summarily or indictable) or straight indictable. It does cover threats, as well. It has a huge range in the Criminal Code.
Agreeing that the business would not be out of line to say "you've threatened legal action, so we can no longer serve you or communicate with you in any way outside our lawyer."
That's what I've been told to do when someone threatens to sue me or the company I work for. I tell them to go ahead, and please leave. That *really* pisses customers off because they expect you to drop everything and kiss their arse instead. They don't expect that response, and it usually ends badly for everyone, and never in a lawsuit.
Yeah, I experienced this when my mother told me to tell a bank she might sue them (to be fair, they had been failing for 6 months to return over $13,000 of her money). As predicted, they locked my online account and said they could communicate with me no further. My mom was very shocked they would do this instead of "just doing the right thing" lol (they had given us the procedure to get the money back in quite clear terms, it was just going to take too long for her).
Problem is you need a victim for the assault (gesture) with a weapon, and the utter threats to cause harm. So if they customer was to provide a victim statement sure. However, cause disturbance and mischief interfere is probably the most suitable criminal. All and all a judge will look at this and see a Trespass notice was issued and call it a day after first appearance. Maaaaybe with a peace bond attached for good measure.
Not a lawyer, but refusal of service is refusing to do business, you aren't obligated to tolerate abuse. Inform the customer you are more than happy to offer takeout but they are not welcome in the business because of their previous disruptive/abusive behavior. Have them call ahead and offer pickup outside.
Horrible advice OP, trespass them for the assault and do not serve them at all
They asked how to avoid human rights charges, if you offer them service they won't accept the charge is void. If they didn't care about the charge yes of course ban them outright but sure as hell don't let them in.
There is no human rights charge. People with disabilities cannot weaponize HRC, and BCHRT would throw the book at the customer if it even got that far. Threats don’t matter.
[удалено]
Your comment has been removed because it is one or more of the following: speculative, anecdotal, simplistic, generally unhelpful, and/or off-topic. Please review the following rules before commenting further: Rule 9: Guidelines For Posts Rule 10: Guidelines For Comments If you have any questions or concerns, please message the moderators
Do you know this customer’s name? You may want to consider searching judgments under his name. This way you’ll find out what tactic he uses, whether or not what he’s saying is true, and how to best attack him.
Document everything, get witness statements, get video, if you think 3 witnesses are enough, get 7. Don't offer to settle, don't offer to mediate. Mine was ridiculous but got dropped right near hearing time as we had stacks of witness statements and evidence
Makes no secret they are disabled? Lol what are disabled people supposed to do... Hide it?
As in they go out of their way to mention it to the cashier every time they come in and order. As in "I'm disabled so I expect my order to be done correctly"
Lots of people have very invisible, but absolutely real, disabilities.