On July 29, 2015, the Toronto Sun published an article titled “PTSD sufferer wants $10Gs for being forced to wait at a mall”. It is available at https://torontosun.com/2015/07/29/ptsd-sufferer-wants-10gs-for-being-forced-to-wait-at-a-mall.
Previously, on May 21, 2015, the Toronto Sun published an article titled “Ontario Human Rights Tribunal to hear complaint over service dog’s delayed entrance to a mall”. The article is available at http://torontosun.com/2015/05/21/ontario-human-rights-tribunal-to-hear-complaint-over-service-dogs-delayed-entrance-to-a-mall.
On May 27, 2015, Global News Toronto aired a news story on television and published an article titled “Toronto man alleges discrimination based on disability by mall owner RioCan”. The article is available at http://globalnews.ca/news/2021621/toronto-man-alleges-discrimination-based-on-disability-by-mall-owner-riocan/.
On May 28, 2015, Global News Toronto aired a second new story on television and published an article titled “Advocates are calling for official government ID for Service Dogs”. The article is available at https://globalnews.ca/video/2023927/advocates-are-calling-for-official-government-id-for-service-dogs.
On July 16, 2015, after the HRTO released its Decision in Sprague v. RioCan Empress Walk Inc., Global News Toronto aired a follow-up news story on the case. The news story is available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e7NoIZyCHHE.
In Andrew’s opinion, the Toronto Sun’s July 29, 2015 article was a “hit piece”.
The fact that the reporter, who had written the May 21, 2015 Toronto Sun Article, did not contact Andrew before publishing the July 29, 2015 Toronto Sun Article or give Andrew an opportunity to comment coupled with the quotes from RioCan’s CEO Edward Sonshine, signalled to Andrew that the July 29, 2015 Toronto Sun Article was a “hit piece”.
Reputable media outlets in Canada give all relevant parties to a story an opportunity to comment on a particular story before the story is published. The Toronto Sun did not do that in respect of the July 29, 2015 Toronto Sun Article.
In response to the July 29, 2015 Toronto Sun Article, Andrew wrote, on August 7, 2015, a letter to the Editor of the Toronto Sun (Adrienne Batra) (the “Letter to the Editor”).
The Letter to the Editor stated the following:
Re: PTSD sufferer wants $10s for being forced to wait at mall – M. Mandel (July 29)
(http://www.torontosun.com/2015/07/29/ptsd-sufferer-wants-10gs-for-being-forced-to-wait-at-a-mall)Dear Ms. Batra:
I understand that you are the Editor of the Toronto Sun.
Last August, I was declined access to a public facility based on my disability because I was accompanied by my certified service dog. For over two years now, National Service Dog (NSD) Flicka provides me with invaluable assistance with the management of a complex medical condition.
I am grateful for the HRTO’s recognition that a human rights violation by RioCan did indeed occur. My desire to seek a HRTO reconsideration request regarding the low monetary damages awarded is, in part, to ensure that an appropriate benchmark is maintained so that organizations hopefully think twice before declining public access to a legitimate service dog team who has offered to present appropriate legal documentation.
M. Mandel’s intimation that I’m not quitting while I’m ahead is absurd.
Service dog/handler teams across Canada fight for their legal rights to public access on a daily basis. We should be embarrassed as a Canadian society that disabled individuals have to take very large corporations to public tribunals to confirm their lawful right to enter a public space while being accompanied by a service dog.
This isn’t about NSD Flicka’s dog food costs or income for me – both are well taken care of by my employment income already. The funds, once received from RioCan, are being donated to National Service Dogs (nsd.on.ca) to support their ongoing work in helping individuals with disabilities pursue independence.
In this matter, RioCan’s representative denied me access to a public facility because I had a disability. Denying me access to a public facility because I have a disability isn’t an “inconvenience”, it is illegal. The monetary damages sought are intended to send a message to organizations, especially RioCan, that they need to act more responsibly in the future.
In addition to the discrimination I experienced from RioCan, M. Mandel’s sarcastic tone and commentary marginalizes individuals with disabilities anticipating the opportunity to enjoy the same civil liberties as any other Canadians. I respectfully suggest her commentary in the Toronto Sun would not be tolerated if the situation involved a person declined access in a public facility due to gender, race or sexual orientation.
There is no room in the great city of Toronto for this kind of disrespect, intolerance and ignorance – particularly not in the public media domain.
Sincerely,
AndrewJ. Andrew Sprague
Barrister and Solicitor (Ontario), and
Handler of National Service Dog (NSD) Flicka[Contact information redacted]
Copy:
Ms. Danielle Forbes, Executive Director, National Service Dogs (NSD)
The Toronto Sun did not publish the Letter to Editor.
Interestingly, in 2018, the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (“HRTO”) awarded $10,000 to a Black man who was required to pre-pay for his meal at a Chinese restaurant (see Wickham v. Hong Shing Chinese Restaurant, 2018 HRTO 500 (CanLII) (https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onhrt/doc/2018/2018canlii34656/2018canlii34656.html)).
In 2020, the HRTO awarded $10,000 to a woman with a disability because a restaurant initially denied her access to a washroom because of her disability (see Butler-Henderson v. 2363647 Ontario Inc. o/a Pentagram Bar & Grill, 2020 HRTO 686 (CanLII) (https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onhrt/doc/2020/2020hrto686/2020hrto686.html)).
There are many parallels between Andrew’s 2014 case against RioCan Real Estate Investment Trust and the cases of Wickham v. Hong Shing Chinese Restaurant and Butler-Henderson v. 2363647 Ontario Inc. o/a Pentagram Bar & Grill.
On July 29, 2015, the Toronto Sun ridiculed Andrew for seeking $10,000 in damages for the discrimination that the HRTO ruled RioCan Real Estate Investment Trust engaged in against Andrew.
Three years later, in 2018, the HRTO began awarding $10,000 in damages for similar discriminatory conduct.
As noted in Global News Toronto’s July 16, 2015 follow-up news story (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e7NoIZyCHHE) and in Andrew’s Letter to the Editor, this has not been about money for Andrew (he donated his awarded damages in the RioCan case to National Service Dogs). This has been about sending a strong message that discriminatory conduct is not acceptable in the province of Ontario.
Andrew is pleased that the HRTO has finally caught up and is now awarding $10,000 in damages for similar discriminatory conduct.
Andrew is also pleased that the Toronto Sun has not ridiculed Mr. Wickham or Ms. Butler-Henderson in the same manner in which they ridiculed him (see https://torontosun.com/news/local-news/toronto-eatery-racially-profiled-black-man-human-rights-tribunal-rules and https://torontosun.com/news/local-news/toronto-eatery-discriminated-against-woman-who-uses-mobility-aids-tribunal).