Eat & Drink
This week on DineSafe: Alimento, E Mart, Farm Fresh Supermarket, Hong Tai Supermarket, Pho House, Thai Express, Thai One On, The Y Cafe
This week on DineSafe, it was back to regular unsanitary-restaurant-busting, with a couple of offending grocery stores thrown into the mix, too. Farm Fresh Supermarket again proved that its name might be more aspirational than descriptive, landing on the DineSafe low list with a total of 14 infractions. A couple of downtown spots were branded with conditional passes, too, including Thai One On on Queen West and Alimento down on King. Here's a glimpse at some of the DineSafe reports this week.
Alimento (500 King St W)
Inspected on: January 9
Inspection finding: Yellow (Conditional Pass)
Number of infractions: 9 (Minor: 2, Significant: 6, Crucial: 1)
Crucial infractions include: Inadequate food temperature control
E Mart (698 Bloor St W)
Inspected on: January 9
Inspection finding: Yellow (Conditional Pass)
Number of infractions: 8 (Minor: 3, Significant: 4, Crucial: 1)
Crucial infractions include: Failure to protect food from contamination
Farm Fresh Supermarket (4466 Sheppard Ave E)
Inspected on: January 8
Inspection finding: Yellow (Conditional Pass)
Number of infractions: 14 (Minor: 5, Significant: 6, Crucial: 2)
Crucial infractions include: Inadequate food temperature control
Hong Tai Supermarket (2555 Victoria Park Ave)
Inspected on: January 9
Inspection finding: Yellow (Conditional Pass)
Number of infractions: 4 (Minor: 1, Significant: 1, Crucial: 2)
Crucial infractions include: Inadequate food temperature control
Pho House (610 Gerrard St E)
Inspected on: January 10
Inspection finding: Yellow (Conditional Pass)
Number of infractions: 7 (Minor: 2, Significant: 3, Crucial: 2)
Crucial infractions include: Failure to protect food from contamination, inadequate food temperature control
Thai Express (2061 Steeles Ave W)
Inspected on: January 9
Inspection finding: Yellow (Conditional Pass)
Number of infractions: 4 (Minor: 2, Significant: 1, Crucial: 1)
Crucial infractions include: Inadequate food temperature control
Thai One On (500 Queen St W)
Inspected on: January 10
Inspection finding: Yellow (Conditional Pass)
Number of infractions: 7 (Minor: 2, Significant: 4, Crucial: 0)
Crucial infractions include: N/A
The Y Cafe (55 John St)
Inspected on: January 10
Inspection finding: Yellow (Conditional Pass)
Number of infractions: 7 (Minor: 1, Significant: 6, Crucial: 0)
Crucial infractions include: N/A


Discussion
33 Comments
Sort By Oldest First / Newest First
Subscribe
If you were presenting that this website has a personal bias that this website has to "bring down" the establishment, you may have also mentioned some other establishments other than Alimento (e.g. Pho House, Thai Express) which have received a pass on or before publishing date.
All-in-all, it comes across more that you seem to be an agent of Alimento other than someone who is concerted about responsible journalism.
Get your shit together. People notice infractions, a day old, or a month old. It's all GROSS.
Half your place is empty and dead anyways.
Looks like a cover for something else ...
Your employees in the "deli" stand around EATING meat from the case. I walk by that alley a few times a day, every single day and see them often enough cramming food in there mouths ... it's freakin' NASTY.
As someone who knows how often that inventory is turned, I never shop there.
No one in the direct neighborhood does. We've all noticed.
If you want your restaurant to stay out of lists like these, get your shit together.
Blame yourself, not BlogTO
For the record; again I dont work there and I dont know the management. I have maybe been there once or twice (once when it opened because I was curious, i found it to be overpriced but good quality...not worth buying though. The second time I went because St. Lawerence market is closed on Mondays and I needed a specific cheese for my pasta). Im the kind of person who doesnt even frequent restaurants too often (maybe once every other week or once a month) as I prefer to prepare all of my own meals from scratch--its the only way I can ensure I get what I like and that the food is handled to the standard I prefer.
It's not a one time 'whoops'.
SMH.
I will share this however; and someone who is friends with a health inspector--it is actually very easy to fail a health inspection and get infractions though very small mistakes. He always makes the joke that if I ran a restaurant the way I run my kitchen I'd fail--the standards for a lot of restaurants are much higher than what most people assume
http://www.toronto.ca/health/dinesafe/index.htm?show=detail&id=107682 So, it is not inaccurate to say at the time of writing the article (not printing) they had a yellow.
Do you like when food prep workers wash their hands? They had no functional hand sink or soap available. Do you enjoy having food kept in the "danger zone" for 4 hours+? They didn't have proper food temp control. Do you expect someone will process food on a clean workspace? They didn't.
I have no idea how they morphed into top form in 2 days but hey, the inspector felt all was well. The new green status doesn't excuse the previous results though - it is deplorable they failed that many crucial aspects of the inspection; sets terrible precedent. It is possible the new results were not updated on DineSafe on the same day.
What in fact is gross is you making accusations without qualification or proof. Accusing hard working employees in the manner you did is irresponsible. I am a proponent of free speech and for the unfettered flow of opinions. However, there is a fine line between this and defamation. You claim that this is prevalent yet you are the only individual to have witnessed it. You are clearly in the minority in your opinion. For every one ludicrous comment like yours there are 100 glowing ones. Unsubstantiated accusations are nothing more than hot air and usually the product of spiteful and malicious folks. Conversely, what is more credible and evident in your diatribe is that you are governed by ulterior motives, perhaps even an abettor of another (competitor, enemy or otherwise), to misrepresent the situation for self interest. Are you a recruit with this agenda? If not, then there’s no accounting for myopia and subjectivity. You are an opportunistic lout who, under the veil of anonymity, projects him/her self as a crusader. Perhaps instead of being cowardly and composing an unproven, invective tirade you should approach those who you purport are responsible and convey your concerns. Perhaps even to management. To simply use this platform to accuse supports the fact that you are self-serving. How the occurrence of lack of soap in a dispenser in that one isolated moment serves as a basis for your comments is baffling. You are obliged to be more elucidating. Moreover, despite being buttressed by some others on this board (to wit, ‘alex’ or potato - who has been a past irritant of alimento), does not neutralize how reckless and negligent your piece is. You should take a page out of the propriety, tact and manners of ‘mynamesnotmaybe’. This individual is objective, unbiased and unprejudiced. You could learn much from that approach.
To discredit you further you opine that the establishment is a ‘cover’ for something. How offensive, inflammatory and provocative is that? It is nothing short of slanderous. I’d submit that you are a ‘cover’ for someone or some other. Based on all this, how anyone gives credence to anything you posit is puzzling and ought not to be dignified in any way. You are a bantering fool fortified by the fact that you cannot be subject to reparations for what you spew herein. Continue being a capricious pawn - good luck with that. Everyone at some point and to someone is responsible for their words and actions. With that, in the immortal words of the principal in Billy Madison: Bob the Builder, ‘what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul’.
HJAHAHAHAHAAAAA!!!!!!makes you look even worse. seriously dude.
note that when you go on your 'peeping tom' crusade, your mug will also be captured by the surveillance cameras out there. so i wouldn't be too confident about maintaining your 'cover' if i were you. you won't be too hard to identify - not many sane people do these types of weirdo things!!! that is, if it hasn't been blown already - the world is a small place pal. i'd advise that you take your cuckoo meds and check yourself into a loonie bin to try and salvage your pathetic, trouble-making life. or at the very least ask your enablers for a raise - to be putting yourself out like this as a supreme irritant and nuisance, you better be making some good dough. if not, you should probably think twice about your shenanigans.