Everest: for the Discriminating Palate?
Aaron Shelbourne has a long history of sticking up for the little guy through his work with the Ontario Coalition Against Poverty (OCAP), and he's also a founding member of Independence Unlimited, an advocacy group for people with disabilities.
He's also a victim of discrimination.
Shelbourne, who lives with Cerebral Palsy (CP) and communicates through augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) which requires an assistant, used to be a regular patron of Everest restaurant on Queen Street, until he was recently asked to never come back by manager Karma Sanchok.
Apparently Shelbourne accidentally damaged a newly renovated door trying to use the restaurant's restroom. After Shelbourne and his communication assistant paid for their meals, Sanchok informed Shelbourne's assistant that they would not be welcome back.
On Friday, March 25, Shelbourne returned to Everest to demand an apology (see video above, paying special attention to the fact that Sanchok still refuses to speak directly to Shelbourne, almost as his condition makes him invisible). The event turned into a small rally for the rights of the disabled that was eventually peacefully dispersed by the police.
Shelbourne is now planning a second protest, tentatively scheduled for sometime in May. He's also speaking with a lawyer and considering a lawsuit. He wants to make sure the owners of Everest hear his message loud and clear:
"I am demanding a public apology from the management of the restaurant. I want them to acknowledge that I am a person and that because I use a wheelchair, that doesn't make me any less of a person. If they don't like scratches on their bathroom doors they should make the washroom accessible!"
The owner of Everest remains unapologetic, and recently responded to a post on Molly's Blog saying that "the wheelchair customer ... caused a big gouge on our new door .... not just a minor scratch." He goes on to insist he has "the right to address customers who cause damage to our property .... if un-intentional [sic], we atleast [sic] expect an apology" from "this wheel-chair person."
For more information on this story, please visit the Boycott Everest Restaurant on Queen group on Facebook; 352 members and counting.
Video from YouTube
Comments (34)
Does anybody know if there is a section about restaurants being accessible in the Ontarians with Disabilities Act?
the AODA will have a section on that i'm sure, but the regulations of different things are still being developed and won't be in place for a while yet. The goal of the act is to "achieve accessibility for Ontarians with disabilities by 2025."
the in-the-weeds stuff is available at http://www.mcss.gov.on.ca/mcss/english/.
the (for lack of a better word) marketing stuff is at http://www.accesson.ca/ado/english/.
I watched the clip, and I'm not sympathetic to the supporters of Mr. Shelbourne. They act childishly and aggressively toward the retaurant owner, and seem more interested in making a point regarding accessible than in the stated objective of getting an apology from the owner.
The owner clearly states that the reason for excluding Mr. Shelbourne is damage to her property. Not ALL wheelchairs, or that wheelchairs COULD damage her property, but that Mr. Shelbourne's wheelchair DID damage her property. This is not unreasonable. To berate an owner for this, and to try to couch the issue in terms of discrimination is irresponsible and detracts from the fight against real discrimination.
If Mr. Shelbourne really feels this is discimination, then file a complaint with the HRC; make some coherent, well-reasoned arguments, in an appropriate forum. It's annoying to other patrons to have protestors making a scene while you're trying to enjoy a meal.
eww who would eat there anyways, service is horrible, and the food terrible.
Now i have a 3rd reason to boycott the place
I have to agree with open source, as well but not for the reason haha stated. Here's my stance: The manager perhaps used the wrong words to communicate her idea. However, if they do not want to bear additional costs for accomodating an individual with disability, that's her choice. Discrimation isn't a one-man game. When all the resturaunts are like that, that is discrimination. As far as being treated like a person stands, to be treated equally, you need not make a big fuss like that. It only shows you're a special case (which you are) but it's not going to help you go anywhere in getting the same status. Now, people with disabilities are going to be treated more cautiously than before. Here's treating the person equally: telling them to leave like any other individual. Private Property: we reserve the right to refuse admission.
Oh I forgot to give Kudos to Steve on his completely neutral stance with regards to this particular piece of journalism.
"Discrimation isn't a one-man game. When all the resturaunts are like that, that is discrimination."
Are you saying that discriminatory behaviour can only be labelled as such if it occurs on a wide scale?
This story sounds like it was a personal conflict between the 2 parties and then Shelbourne & OCAP took the opportunity to turn it into something else.
Also a "palette" is for painting, the word you wanted was "palate"
Tammy: Good catch - I'll fix that immediately. Homonyms will be the death of me.
I think the real story goes a lot deeper than the simple facts suggest as well. The subtext suggests a rift that's been growing for a while on both sides. But I tried to remain as neutral as possible with such volatile subject matter, as Tabish suggests (although I don't think it's too difficult to see where my sympathies lay (or is it "where my sympathies lie?")).
The management of Everest are obviously pretty uncaring and callous. But simply because their restaurant isn't wheelchair accessible doesn't make them discriminatory. Most restaurants (unfortunately) can't take wheelchairs, and when you add the further lack of mobility that CP adds, it leaves Mr. Shelbourne with an appalling lack of options.
This is another example of OCAP taking over and blowing things out of proportion. Rude unsympathetic service has been bullied into 'discrimination'.
I won't go to Everest, but won't believe the hype either.
The restaurant has the right to ask customers to leave and not come back. It's a private business not a public institute. Are blind people going to sue restaurants because they don't have braille menus? I understand that having a disability is a challenge but that;s a still a minority. The way things work is tha tyou cater to the majority of your clientele.
Who cares if he works for OCAP...just another leftist piece of crap organization. Just get a real frikken job and stop complaining. What ever happened to hard work?
I'm disturbed by this article and the attached video. It's the furthest thing from citizen journalism and, as a result, unworthy of other hard work being produced by blogTO contributors.
As far as the confrontation is concerned, Mr. Shelbourne should be ashamed of himself. No matter who you are, if you accidently damaged something in any restaurant, you would be asked not to return. If you look past the initial emotional reaction, it is clear that he is seeking special treatment, not equality.
I empathize with Everest and it's management who were unfairly dragged into a fight they will never win. This is not because they are in the wrong, but simply because it is no longer about logic or facts, but is now an emotional issue playing off pity for Mr. Shelbourne. A pity he is freely exploiting.
If Mr. Shelbourne wants to be empowered and respected I urge him to separate himself from these typical OCAP tactics of bullying and spin. Approach the issue in a format that seeks out truth not truthiness.
i am so disgusted with all of these comments. spend a day in a wheelchair and try to get around this city, and then come back and comment.
it is the restuarants fault for not having an accessible bathroom. it is appauling that they do not have one, when they clearly knew they have patrons that are disabled prior to their bathroom renovation. if aaron was black, or gay, or some other minority and told not to come back because of being black or gay or whatever this would be a huge issue. however because aaron is disabled it is almost a non-issue to torontonians.
the issue is not that he damaged the door. if i, as an abled bodied person had damaged the door i am sure i would have been asked to pay for the damage, and of course welcomed back. this is the normal logical solution to this situation . however this is not the solution reached, and being asked not to return because of a disability is discrimination.
I can't believe some of these comments!
It isn't about pity. It's about treating other people like human beings. She wouldn't even acknowledge him in conversation.
Opensource - this IS discrimination. The washroom wasn't accessible. It is equivalent to having a sign that says "Jews Stay Out" above the washroom door.
Wow, talk about misrepresenting the facts (referring to the protesters in the video, not the author of the piece). "They don't serve people in wheelchairs here"? How distorted is that??
The thing is, restaurants are not required to have accessible washrooms. Maybe they SHOULD be - but that's a different question. But since they aren't, my sympathies lie with the restaurant manager. Suppose the washroom was so inaccessible that a wheelchair just could not have been brough there no matter what. Would that give patrons in wheelchairs the right to call in demolition crews and remove all obstacles from the wheelchair path?
As a small business owner, it would be far too costly to convert the entrance and washroom of my business in order to accommodate a disabled individual in a wheel-chair. Can't afford so can't do it - simple budgeting. Now can 'bryan' explain to me how this is a similar situation to posting a sign saying 'Jews Stay Out'? I mean if OCAP wants to be taken seriously by the public at large, they really have to be fronted by somebody other than yet another newly-minted university grad looking for a cause.
Jess said:
"the issue is not that he damaged the door. if i, as an abled bodied person had damaged the door i am sure i would have been asked to pay for the damage, and of course welcomed back. this is the normal logical solution to this situation ."
Speaking of which, did anything like this happen at some point? The story seems to have a gap between the door being damaged and the banning. According to the restaurant the assistant was approached and dismissed it. What's the story on Shelbourne's side? Did he ever offer to pay for the damages? And since everyone here loves an analogy/hyperbole, if a fat man breaks a chair in a restaurant should he pay to replace it, be banned or call discrimination?
Also, after watching the video I have to say my sympathies lie with the restaurant.
"On Friday, March 25, Shelbourne returned to Everest to demand an apology (see video above, paying special attention to the fact that Sanchok still refuses to speak directly to Shelbourne, almost as his condition makes him invisible)."
That's drawing a much more imaginative conclusion than I would. Sanchok responds to the person questioning her, which is mostly the assistant and the guy wearing a toque. Seems similar to how when you're having a conversation mediated by a translator you tend to direct your comments to the translator. Furthermore, rather than approach Sanchok personally, Shelbourne brings cameras and a crowd to demand an apology. Are you really surprised the police eventually became involved?
An organization like a restaurant has an affirmative duty to accommodate people with disabilities (and the other groups encompassed by the Ontario Human Rights Code) up to the point of undue hardship. Indeed, some small businesses might be legitimately unable to afford wheelchair access (to use the topic under discussion here). But that has to be determined in each individual case. It is legally false to claim that businesses need serve only a claimed ?majority? group if doing so discriminates against or unfairly treats a person on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination.
You kids should know this already; the Human Rights Code is older than you are.
Rocketeer: I believe that the proper diplomatic protocol when speaking through a translator is to address the other person directly, eye-to-eye, as if they understood every word, and let the translator fill in the gaps for you.
But Mr. Shelbourne doesn't need his assistant to figure out what's being said to him. People like Ms. Sanchok would rather speak to his assistant because Mr. Shelbourne makes them uncomfortable and they'd rather not have to think about the actual frailty of human existence when their only concern is providing a nice relaxed dining experience where their clients can dine in peace without being reminded of the actual frailty of human existence themselves.
Pretending people with disabilities as if they don't exist is definitely not going to diffuse the situation, to say the least.
Having been to Everest recently, I can see how it would have been easy to scratch or gouge the stall door with a weelchair as I almost did it just standing in there. In order to get in to the stall and close the door, one needs to nearly straddle the toilet (a difficult feat for one who does not need to rely on a wheelchair, let alone someone with CP).
Although I would disagree with the tactics employed by OCAP and it's members in this matter, it's not Shelbourne's fault that Everest's designer did not use common sense when laying out or altering the men's washroom.
There are restaurants in Toronto that wouldn't let Mr. Shelbourne in the door. As a matter of practicality, why would OCAP choose to pick on an establishment that was endevouring to accomodate Mr. Shelbourne in the first place?
There must be a more compelling example of discrimination that they could get behind, because this one just seems to ring of bitterness and bad-tempers.
If I were in their shoes I'd step back and rethink their strategy. This type of thing doesn't advance their agenda effectively, and so doesn't in the end help the people they claim they're trying to help.
First of all, accessibility should not be just an option. Unless a restaurant or club is designated "Private or Members only" they should not have the right to say who may enter, and who may not, unless the individual in question has caused a problem in the past which adversely affects the business in question.
Who cares if a gouge was caused in the door frame? It's the cost of doing business. End of subject. Shame on Everest for using that as their excuse in preventing Mr. Shelbourne from coming back and even greater shame on Sanchok for being such a wussy little coward by refusing to address Mr. Shelbourne directly.
I'm not a big fan of OCAP, although I do subscribe to their mailing list.
OCAP's most recent debacle over the death of a homeless man who wasn't homeless has shown that they don't always like to use facts to promote their works.
However, in this case I feel that this may the only recourse, short of going through a lengthy battle in court. Public demonstrations have been useful in the past. Maybe they will prove so again now.
"But Mr. Shelbourne doesn't need his assistant to figure out what's being said to him."
Did the manager know that? She was in a stressful situation and had to defend against attack. So she was responding to those who were attacking her. Most natural reaction.
To those who claim that a restaurant should just put up with damaged property I repeat my question: do patrons in wheelchairs have the right to call in demolition crews and destroy half the restaurant in order to access the washroom? This is only the next logical step.
"Wouldn't it be easier for himself and the restuarant to just order delivery?"
Wow, now THIS is just ridiculous. When I go to a restaurant, I don't just go for food - it's for the overall experience. Why should someone in a wheelchair be denied that? You're just suggesting that people in wheelchairs should just shut themselves inside their homes - for their own good, and so they don't create problems for the "normal people". This sort of attitude is disgusting.
If Aaron Shelbourne has a problem with Everest not having a wheelchair accessibile washroom then he should take it up with the city, not the restaurant. It's building inspectors who decide if restaurants are supposed to have handicap washrooms. If Everest was supposed to have one, wouldn't the building inspectors have noticed and ordered them to install one?
Anyway I don't even have anything invested in this issue and from what I hear on both sides I side with the restaurant. There's way too much knee jerk reactions going on. Anyway couldn't this article have been a little more neutral?
This is a tough one.
I've worked in a lot of those small, independent restaurants in old converted houses that are so prevalent around Toronto, most of which have their washrooms down a narrow basement stairwell. I would often get phone calls from people asking if we were wheelchair accessible. When I told them that we weren't, I'd be given whatever the phone equivalent of a stink-eye is, and sometimes informed that we were being discriminatory.
I'm all for restaurants being more accessible to people with disabilities, but what about all these restaurants that are structurally unable to accommodate wheelchair washrooms?
And finally, while I'm not a huge fan of Everest, I have to echo that the tactics used by OCAP are pretty unimpressive. Way to cause a totally ineffective scene.
I don't agree with opensource and well I hope that haha is joking because your comment is offensive and narrow minded.
I think that the people protesting had a right to go and be heard and well from what I saw they mainly wanted an apology for the manner in which this was handled and how they addressed (or didn't address) Mr. Shelbourn. There is absolutely no reason in this day and age for a restaurant (not to mention one in busy Queen West)to not be accessible. It did sound to me that the owners were saying that they aren't equipped for wheelchairs so people who use wheelchairs shouldn't eat there, unless I misunderstood that part. (which sounds a lot like discrimination to me, funny huh?)
Are there not regulations and codes that indicate that a place of business or a place providing a service must be accessible?
Maybe this could have been handled differently. Maybe Mr.Shelbourn could have apologized for the damage that he more than likely didn't do on purpose. Maybe the owners could have been more sympathetic. Maybe making someone feel unwelcome because they are required to use a wheelchair by no fault of their own is a blatant act of discrimination. What is done is done however and I find myself on Mr.Shelbourne's side to be quite honest.
Besides, how effective is filing a polite little complaint that may never be seen, that the public won't know about and will do very little to open the eyes of ignorant people who still discriminate really do? Really?
I'm pro-accessibility.
Also, If they served Mr.Shelbourne in the first place then they would have obviously noticed he was in a wheelchair and maybe that would have been the time to tell him that they weren't equipped for wheelchairs as far as their washrooms were concerned, however, since they had no problem serving him, and taking his money for the service I again have no sympathy for the restaurant.
I feel that both parties handles this extremely poorly.
Mr. Shelbourne and assistant seemingly were jetting from the restaurant after breaking the bathroom w/o letting the management know (that was REALLY rude and if he loved the restaurant so much why not say 'hey oops, I broke your washroom cause it's not accessible')
On the other hand the manager should take some PR courses. I find it funny that people are over analyzing phrases and words she spoke when it's quite obvious English is NOT her first language.
I do agree with the restaurant when they said, he should have just come in and talked to them maturely instead of 'rallying the troops' together and causing a huge fuss.
>Unless a restaurant or club is designated "Private or Members only" they should not have the right to say who may enter, and who may not
As far as I know it's ALL PRIVATE property, w/o the sign or not.
In fact they have the RIGHT to refuse you if they choose. Just like you have the RIGHT to refuse to eat/visit there.
It works boths ways.
why has someone not deleted the 2 most recent entries from opensource and haha?
they are childish, and disgusting. For anyone to be taking the owners side in this argument, i'd like for you to spend some time wheel chair bound and see how it feels.
@anti-opensource
Editor's note: removing the comment from opensource would be censoring an articulated opinion (regardless of how backwards it may be). I did, however, remove the comment from haha (which was nothing more than a petty insult).
"I would often get phone calls from people asking if we were wheelchair accessible. When I told them that we weren't, I'd be given whatever the phone equivalent of a stink-eye is, and sometimes informed that we were being discriminatory."
I think that's a good thing. I'm glad you got phone stink-eye and comments. Only by bringing attention to this will things start to change in this city. Can you imagine -- just 30 years ago people who need mobility equipment to simply live their lives with some degree of independence were not even considered in city planning. It's seems so primitive. You all would benefit from this great exhibit at the ROM right now on disability history -- it'll bring some de-icer to your hardened hearts.
At any rate, I remain doubtful that if an able-bodied person was a regular patron of a restaurant, and they caused a small amount of damage in said restaurant, that they would be banned for life. A smart restaurant owner would probably realize that a regular customer is more profitable to them in the long run.
View More Events
Suggest an Event
Join the blogTO Flickr group
Join the blogTO YouTube Group
RSS