B.C. café owner ordered to pay $12K for discriminating against customer with guide dog

A Black Labrador, the same breed as the guide dog in this story, is shown in this stock photo; (Credit: Shutterstock)

The owner of a B.C. café has been ordered to pay a woman, who is legally blind, $12,000 in compensation for discrimination after she was refused service because she had a guide dog. 

The B.C. Human Rights Tribunal ruled on the case last week and the decision was posted online Tuesday.

The complaint stems from an incident in September of 2019 when Georgia Pike, accompanied by her service animal, Grainger, tried to order food at Ooh La La Café.

Pike alleged that the owner, Lu James Li, discriminated against her on the basis of disability when he would not serve her because she brought the animal – which she relies upon to help her navigate the world without sight – inside the café.

THE DISCRIMINATION

The tribunal heard, in testimony from Pike, that she was told by the café owner, Lu James Li: “no dogs allowed, take it outside.” She also said that she, and the person she was with at the time, both informed Li that Grainger was a guide dog and legally allowed to be in the eatery.

"During the whole interaction, the person did not ask for proof that Grainger was a guide dog or seem to have any regard to Ms. Pike being blind," the tribunal decision said, summarizing the evidence.

Li, for his part, argued that he did not discriminate because he was complying with regulations that prohibit pets in restaurants and that he refused service partially because of the dog's behaviour, which he said included sniffing and licking food.

Tribunal Member Sonya Pighin decided that Pike's version of events was more credible than Li's.

That determination was made, in part, because it was corroborated by a video that Pike took of part of the interaction.

The decision says the video shows Li saying dogs are not allowed. It also shows Pike saying, "I’m blind, I can’t see, so I can’t operate without him," according to the ruling.

Although Grainer can’t be seen in the video, Pighin said all of the other evidence submitted supported Pike's claim that her guide dog was with her, despite Li trying to argue it was a different dog entirely.

Explaining why Li's treatment of Pike was discriminatory, Pighin summarized the law which requires proof that a service was denied, proof that the denial was because of a protected characteristic under the Human Rights Code and proof that the denial had a negative impact.

"It is because Ms. Pike is legally blind that she had Grainger with her at the Café, Pighin wrote.

"Mr. Li refused Ms. Pike service because she had Grainger with her inside the café. Ms. Pike experienced an adverse impact as a direct result of that refusal of service. The connection between Ms. Pike being legally blind and the adverse impacts she experienced are clear."

THE IMPACT

Pike claimed $12,000 in damages as compensation for injury to her dignity, feelings and self-respect. Pighin noted that Li did not provide any submissions on what amount of compensation would be appropriate or adequate.

Describing the impact of the discrimination, the decision says that Pike "burst into tears" immediately after the interaction at the café and that it left her feeling "demeaned and helpless" as well as "small and overwhelmed."

The tribunal also heard that there was a longer-lasting impact.

Pike became legally blind after a stroke in 2015, the decision says, adding that she needed to re-learn how to live independently without sight.

"Ms. Pike had spent the past four years learning how to live with legal blindness in a society where the majority of those around her have their vision. It occurred at a time where she had come to feel safe navigating public spaces with Grainger by her side," the decision said.

"Mr. Li’s refusal to serve Ms. Pike interrupted Ms. Pike’s feelings of safety in this regard, and her comfort in using a guide dog as a navigation tool."

Since the incident at the café, Pike told the tribunal she is less likely to go out on her own with Grainger and that she will stay in the car in order to avoid entering businesses where she fears she may face further discrimination.

"Even though there are laws to protect her against discrimination, they did not protect her on that day," the decision notes.

Further, the public nature of the discrimination was also a factor considered in assessing damages.

"Ms. Pike was entitled to be treated in a manner that is understanding of her dignity and rights, and where she was entitled to be without impediments," the ruling said.

Pighin also said that Li made comments during the hearing that may open him up to another discrimination complaint or that could be used as grounds for Pike to file an application requiring him to cover costs "for engaging in improper conduct during the course of the complaint."

Quotes of the comments were not included, but the decision described them as "not conducive to a safe space for Ms. Pike."