Whose Rights Exactly?
The privacy of one's home is seen as protected by ownership and the right of people to enjoy their privacy. This can be overturned, however, if and when home-owners themselves alter the presumed privacy of their home by opening up the home as a business, and as a business, welcoming strangers into their inner sanctum. Then the home is no longer private; it is a home converted to a business that caters to the comfort of travellers, as a bed and breakfast.
It is still a private enterprise, but it does not quite enjoy the rights to privacy that most home owners do, due to the fact that there are, on a temporary basis, people other than family members enjoying the interior space on a client basis, paying for the privilege of intruding on the privacy of a home that is more than a home. Still, it is perfectly feasible for owners of bed and breakfast establishments to maintain certain client criteria.
Bed and breakfast owners have the right, as a private business, to reject a paying client if they feel that client represents as someone with whom they would not wish to do business. On the other hand, there are laws enacted to protect very distinct portions of society, those for whom the services of a trained animal are required to enable them to go about in public in safety and security.
Under the law businesses may not deny service to those who are accompanied by service dogs; the blind, for example, dependent on the professionalism of a trained working dog, their constant companion enabling them to move about in safety, warning them when danger is at hand. In Ottawa, a bed-and-breakfast owner denied service to a blind man with his guide dog.
Claiming to be allergic to dogs, the owner, Doug McCue, denied service to David Martin, his wife Nancy, and service dog Wazey, at his Cornerstone Bed and Breakfast on Drummond Street West. Mr. and Mrs. Martin sought to reserve a room in August 2008 to attend a wedding, and there was a room available for them then and there. A previous enquiry elsewhere had denied them a booking.
When it was revealed by Nancy Martin that her husband and his service dog would be accompanying her, she was informed of Mr. McCue's 'no-pet' policy. Which is unfortunate, because Mr. Martin's dog is no mere pet, but a valuable and trusted working animal. The Martins felt rather incensed that laws meant to give them parity with others in services could be flouted in such a manner.
And they sought the assistance of a lawyer sympathetic to their situation. Unsurprisingly, since that lawyer too is blind and uses a guide dog. Seeking to support a basic moral and lawful principle, they wanted an apology by letter, an assurance that Mr. McCue would alter his discriminatory policy, and a cheque for $2,000, to be turned over to a group training guide dogs for the blind.
Mr. McCue failed to respond, and a following letter from Mr. Martin's lawyer gave Mr. McCue a request for $2,500 in general damages, $3,00 in legal fees to be accompanied by a written notice of change in policy. "Should I not hear from you by September 5, my instructions are to commence action, both under the Ontario Blind Persons' Rights Act and the Ontario Human Rights Code, and to have served upon you said documents shortly thereafter."
Mr. McCue is one stubborn man, refusing to recognize the demands, and as a result the demands escalated. Both he and Mr. Martin suffered extreme stress as a result of the situation. Days before a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario hearing the two finally agreed to a mediation attempt. Mr. McCue admitted "sincere regret", and handed Mr. Martin a $700 cheque, which went directly to guide-dog training.
However, Mr. McCue is adamant that the sincere regret that he proffered was insincere after all, and he still feels hard done by. His little enterprise is no longer in operation and Mr. McCue has now turned his ire upon Mr. Martin's lawyer, reporting his 'intimidating' letters of demand to the Law Society of Upper Canada.
Mr. McCue can brood on the injustice done him now, in the privacy of his home no longer open to service the needs of strangers. His original purpose in opening his home, he said, was to make the acquaintance of interesting people. Nancy and Ian Martin are exceedingly interesting people. As is their lawyer, Terrance Green.
It is still a private enterprise, but it does not quite enjoy the rights to privacy that most home owners do, due to the fact that there are, on a temporary basis, people other than family members enjoying the interior space on a client basis, paying for the privilege of intruding on the privacy of a home that is more than a home. Still, it is perfectly feasible for owners of bed and breakfast establishments to maintain certain client criteria.
Bed and breakfast owners have the right, as a private business, to reject a paying client if they feel that client represents as someone with whom they would not wish to do business. On the other hand, there are laws enacted to protect very distinct portions of society, those for whom the services of a trained animal are required to enable them to go about in public in safety and security.
Under the law businesses may not deny service to those who are accompanied by service dogs; the blind, for example, dependent on the professionalism of a trained working dog, their constant companion enabling them to move about in safety, warning them when danger is at hand. In Ottawa, a bed-and-breakfast owner denied service to a blind man with his guide dog.
Claiming to be allergic to dogs, the owner, Doug McCue, denied service to David Martin, his wife Nancy, and service dog Wazey, at his Cornerstone Bed and Breakfast on Drummond Street West. Mr. and Mrs. Martin sought to reserve a room in August 2008 to attend a wedding, and there was a room available for them then and there. A previous enquiry elsewhere had denied them a booking.
When it was revealed by Nancy Martin that her husband and his service dog would be accompanying her, she was informed of Mr. McCue's 'no-pet' policy. Which is unfortunate, because Mr. Martin's dog is no mere pet, but a valuable and trusted working animal. The Martins felt rather incensed that laws meant to give them parity with others in services could be flouted in such a manner.
And they sought the assistance of a lawyer sympathetic to their situation. Unsurprisingly, since that lawyer too is blind and uses a guide dog. Seeking to support a basic moral and lawful principle, they wanted an apology by letter, an assurance that Mr. McCue would alter his discriminatory policy, and a cheque for $2,000, to be turned over to a group training guide dogs for the blind.
Mr. McCue failed to respond, and a following letter from Mr. Martin's lawyer gave Mr. McCue a request for $2,500 in general damages, $3,00 in legal fees to be accompanied by a written notice of change in policy. "Should I not hear from you by September 5, my instructions are to commence action, both under the Ontario Blind Persons' Rights Act and the Ontario Human Rights Code, and to have served upon you said documents shortly thereafter."
Mr. McCue is one stubborn man, refusing to recognize the demands, and as a result the demands escalated. Both he and Mr. Martin suffered extreme stress as a result of the situation. Days before a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario hearing the two finally agreed to a mediation attempt. Mr. McCue admitted "sincere regret", and handed Mr. Martin a $700 cheque, which went directly to guide-dog training.
However, Mr. McCue is adamant that the sincere regret that he proffered was insincere after all, and he still feels hard done by. His little enterprise is no longer in operation and Mr. McCue has now turned his ire upon Mr. Martin's lawyer, reporting his 'intimidating' letters of demand to the Law Society of Upper Canada.
Mr. McCue can brood on the injustice done him now, in the privacy of his home no longer open to service the needs of strangers. His original purpose in opening his home, he said, was to make the acquaintance of interesting people. Nancy and Ian Martin are exceedingly interesting people. As is their lawyer, Terrance Green.
Labels: Charity, Companions, Justice, Ottawa
posted by Pieface @ 5:51 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home