ottawa foodies

I thought that this would be more appropriate for the forum.

I know that we have had discussion in past about children in restaurants, bringing children to fine dining etc. This particular post makes me scratch my head (see comments Taylor's food and wine).

Why on earth would you want to bring a 3 month old for dinner with 4 adults??? Sure, maybe to give the mother a chance to get out. Seriously though, dinner with 4 adults is usually a long, lingering experience. The reviews of this restaurant so far have suggested that it is cramped and loud. Having been the child dragged to many adult dinners, this is not a pleasant experience. Albeit, the child is only 3mos and will not have any recollection of this experience in future, how can you predict how the 3month old will behave for the duration of dinner? My mom and dad remember eating dinner in shifts while the other sat with me in the car as I screamed. They only took me out at this stage because they in another city and had no choice but to take me while they got dinner (they were just passing through, otherwise a take out meal at the hotel would have been more realistic).

The restauranteur is just looking out for everyone's best interests:

1. The other diners in the restaurant that may end up subject to some little screamer. I've yet to see anyone compensate fellow diners with a round of drinks for putting up with their child's behaviour. It falls on the restauranteur to either profusely appologize or compensate other diners should the situation become sour.

2. A small restaurant does worry about its covers, and as stated, the baby just takes up space during prime service time.

3. The immediate group and the mother have their dining experience dictated by the behaviour of the baby. If the baby sleeps for 2.5 hrs in a loud, cramped restaurant, great! More power to you. However, chances are the baby will get tired and the table will be rushing the restaurant to try and finish earlier. This puts unfair expectations on the restaurant and undue pressure on the kitchen and service.

Perhaps the restauranteur could have dealt with the situation using a little more tact or perhaps she did and the original poster chose to interpret the situation as we see posted. Either way, it's allegations like these that slow down the system for those with real complaints.

This person should be a little considerate about their surroundings and think about who they can affect. A more appropriate outing at this junction in time would be a more family oriented atmosphere. It's not the end of the world if they are not among the first to eat at a new restaurant in town. Calling the human rights commission is this person for real or are they just trying to get comments out of people??

i recently dined at ATELIER with 2mo baby and nursing mother. the waitstaff were VERY accommodating even with a fully booked dining room. sure baby did cry a couple of times and mother did nurse discreetly. adjacent dining guests smiled, complimented and made us feel welcome. consideration was a three-way street between restaurant - guests - mother&baby. there are far more alarming things in the world than babies: i.e. rude guests, guests with negative agendas, drunk & disorderly, punk kids with spraypaint cans etc... c'mon!

in a society where many private sector employers secretly frown upon pregnancy, maternal leave, child-rearing and would love to bend the labor laws and screw over maternal rights (or if you're unionized/gov't - new paternal rights)... ask your bosses or even ask yourselves the question: WHAT DID YOUR MOTHER (&FATHER) DO FOR YOU / WHAT DID MY MOTHER (&FATHER) DO FOR ME?? (...neglected cases aside...)

there are newborns and kids everywhere in public. you have your kids they are your future and legacy. you sacrifice so much for them and you'd do everything for them, even die for them. (hopefully LOL!!!).

be assertive and do something positive to yourself and others.

p3j d@ddy (reporting back from downtown TO in the middle of the G20 warzone)

I agree with Pej Daddy completely.

That having been said, I do not think it is realistic nor polite to expect to be able to take a newborn nor kids anywhere and everywhere. We're on our 3rd now and we are very aware of this and try to make our restaurant appearances in places and at times which would not negatively impact others. Depending on the type of establishment, mind you. "fancy pants" restaurants are places we'd be more likely to just not go - or leave the kids at home. Greasy spoon - we don't care at all.

Though back to the flip side - suggesting that a mother should not nurse at the restaurant is way over the top and I'm glad someone filed a human rights complaint. Were it not for that one fact, I'd say the complaint was way over the top.

I think there should be places where babies and kids are not allowed. Even though I agree 100% with Pej, I do not think those 2 positions are mutually exclusive. I think the places where they are not allowed should be few and far between, but they should still be there.

It is a tough balance because really the expectation should be exactly as Pej notes - kids are people too and they are part of our society. But we have women-only gyms so we should have no-kid restaurants. Nonetheless, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that in my opinion many people who do not want to see them here or there are probably being a bit too uptight for their own good.

Oh, and if mom wants to get out - introduce her to a breast pump and introduce the hubby to the 21st century :-) Our latest is 6 weeks old today, and my wife is planning to go to a concert in a few weeks without him, leaving me at home with bottles of breast milk. Just make sure mom introduces the bottle ahead of time or pop could be in for a terrible surprise :-)

We dined at Laurier sur Montcalm many years ago with a small baby in the restaurant and we hardly knew it was there. It slept and it nursed. At that age, dining out with them is usually easier than with older (say 2 to 6 year olds) kids. They don't get bored at 3 months old, they either sleep or they are hungry or they are looking around. We never took our kids to any high-end places at that age, but we did take them out to eat and never had an issue (or if there was an issue it was always handled). There are two sides to every story, but if it's true that they discouraged them because it was not "conducive to the atmosphere that she was trying to create" and that it was "not be appropriate for [her] to nurse in a wine bar" it makes the restaurant seem pretty superficial (and the nursing comment is just not acceptable today).

I agree that if this issue was only about nursing then it would be worthy of a complaint. However, it sounds more like the owner was suggesting that their venue may not be appropriate, in consideration of other customers. They did not refuse to accommodate entirely. You cannot assume that if this party insisted on dining here, the management would not let them nurse. We don't have that information.

i am a mother. i took my infant out all over the place (they are so easy to transport at that age!). it never occurred to me that i wouldn't be allowed somewhere. no one ever told me to leave, cover up, stop nursing, etc.

when was the dinner reservation for? was the dinner reservation for early in the evening before the crowd picked up? was it for 8pm on a busy saturday where dinner may drag on for hours? why didn't the original poster create a real account with a user name?

i don't really understand why the 3 month old needed it's own chair. it can't sit in it. were they going to lug in a giant infant carseat? is it fair to fill a paying seat with a carseat during a busy time of day? i always used a soft carrier for my infant when we went out. i could easily nurse in it and the close contact kept him soothed and settled.

pan bagat - why wouldn't a woman want to spend an evening out celebrating with family and friends? infants/newborns are so easy to transport, they sleep a lot, they just nurse - no other food required, they don't use a highchair yet. what is the big deal? if the baby has colic, or a known crying time (some babies cry on queue every evening), then i would assume the parents wouldn't want to take them out during the time anyway. there is a HUGE difference taking a toddler or older child out for adult meals than taking a tiny infant out.

Whenever this topic comes up I'm reminded of this particular Toronto Life article....which I find deliciously bad.

www.torontolife.com

The executive summary: Contemporary parents try to live the same life they had pre-kids, and this can cause friction with those that want all these ultra hip spots to themselves. Although I'm not a stakeholder in this debate, I occasionally see some parallels in Ottawa culture.

I am sure "my opinion" will be deemed as wrong as people's so often are on this site by those who feel only their opionions are the right ones - but here goes:

I applaud this restaurant for putting the comfort/enjoyment of ALL the other patrons in the restaurant over those of this one lady and her baby.

There are many restaurants in Ottawa that are kid/family friendly, and there are those that are just not conducive. Parents that cannot make this distinction should be prepared for the consequences.

The fact of the matter is: if parents whose children start to cry, immediately got up and left the restaurant and went home then we wouldn't even be having this conversation. But they don't - they insist on staying because THEY want to be out and completely disregard the enjoyment of the rest of the people in the restaurant. It's happened to me over and over.

That is the bottom line here and why other patrons and restaurant owners frown on this situation.

Hey KSW, can I agree with your opinion, but disagree how you apply it to everyone? If I read your 'opinion' correctly, it boils down to "Nobody wants to pay to be in a restaurant next to a screaming baby, and cheers to the restaurant that cares about the 'rest' of it's customers" I can say I totally agree with this sentiment. The problem of course is we don't know ahead of time which babies would be quiet, and which ones not; Only the parents have a good idea of that. I don't like to group 'parents of babies' into it's own category. There are people, who try to be considerate in a public place, and those who do not. Unfortunately we do not have a way ahead of time to distinguish these ( and I don't think being in possession of a baby qualifies ). I have been seated beside loudmouth cellphone users, who I would have gladly traded for a baby, crying or otherwise. Or families who let older kids (who should know better) run rampage through the restaurant, bumping things over, throwing things etc that I would also have traded for the presence of a crying baby. I do not like to eat my dinner out to the plaintive song of a crying baby, but neither do I think it should be a crime (or discriminated against) for someone to want to eat in public with their family ( baby or otherwise ). I think I would like reasonable, and considerate people like HipFunkyFun ( + baby or otherwise ) seated at the next table.

Did Taylor's handle this situation properly? I really don't know, as most of the subtleties of the conversation have been omitted from the anonymous poster's text. If Taylor's told them they were not welcome, that would be wrong. If they tried to suggest ways to optimize the experience (for everyone) such as alternate times ( early seating, or lunch as was suggested ), or perhaps communicate problems of seating 4 people + baby and ask how they would like to solve that, then that would be appropriate. But, we really don't know what was or wasn't said here.

I will admit to being mildly disturbed by person in question jumping so quickly to a Human Rights complaint. It seems... politically motivated and provocative, something that should be used to fix a 'pattern of discrimination', not a disagreement between two people. Why not just post review saying you were discouraged from bringing a baby, and go eat somewhere else?

HFF- hey, if all the baby is going to do is sleep and nurse, I haven't got a problem with it. I probably wouldn't even notice that there was a baby present.

I just can't handle screaming. That would ruin the atmosphere and experience for me. But, again, I don't have kids and if what you say is true - the baby will just sleep and nurse, then it wouldn't be a problem for me.

Would someone with Tourette's with uncontrollable vocal tics also ruin the atmosphere and experience? Should they have to eat at home all the time?

I would have to agree with PanBagnat and ksw on this one. Some restaurants are just not condusive to families and other arrangements should be made. When I dine out that is my evening out and there is nothing more off-putting than having a crying baby in the restaurant. When I go to places like Kelseys or Local Heroes I deal with it because most of their clientele are families. However most of the restaurants I go to are not condusive to families and I am not interested in listening to "the sound of music" in the background. I empathize with the parents since they would love to have a night out in a higher end restaurant but they could always hire a baby sitter or ask their parents or another relative to watch baby while they are dining out. Actually one night of babysitting services from family members would make a nice gift for the birthday girl/boy. Just my two cents.

Does anyone have any kind of idea why New User 2794
a)would choose to make such a post? ie. what would they be hoping to accomplish by sharing with all of us?
b)Why anonymous?
c)why is this person looking after this matter vs. the actual sister?
d) why on this site?

I am at a bit of a loss. This may be saying more about New User 2794 than the Taylor's.

It seems that if the complaint is now filed then it is before that judiciary body for resolution going forward. Our voices one way or an other will not be input into the sister's case. And I think there is a temptation for forum readers to talk to this case without all the facts. Thus not necessarily a useful conversation.

It just struck me as more useful to post the outcome of the 'hearing' when a final ruling is made vs. going to the court of public opinion, which is so highly flawed.

Curious to know if any forum readers are boycotting Taylor's as a result of this complaint.

I am most interested in the human dynamics of people's abilities or inabilities to solve basic conflicts in a meaningful way than the actual complaint here. And these are observations I will watch for on both sides of the situation.

If we really knew who New User 2794 was by name (and the sister), would we be less sympathetic to their concern if we found out they have a history of being provocative with the use of filing complaints with the OHRC regularly?

Snoopy, you are grouping people with intention, with people with no intention. Just because a condition such as Tourette's exists, should we think it appropriate for everyone to yell and scream whenever they want to? I believe it is different altogether to accommodate for a person's condition, versus accommodating for their lack of courtesy. So to answer your question, NO, they should not have to eat at home. Does this give everyone license to act out.. my answer is also NO.

I agree with you. However, I do not believe any parent on a night out with their baby has every intention of their baby "behaving" and not crying. While my analogy may have gone a bit far, a baby does not have intention either. They cry sometimes because they have to, and sometimes for no reason at all.

I also disagree with the notion of ruining atmosphere and enjoyment. I fail to see how one can say that families are more welcome in a diner than a fine dining establishment. Paying more money for food entitles you to better food and probably better decor. That's it.

I don't mind babies, even they are crying.
I also don't mind kids with noise...AS LONG AS parents are trying to do something about the situation.
BUT if parents do nothing about it and let their kids go wild, I will be very pissed at ignorant parents, not at children.

I won't be boycotting Taylor's. I actually want to try this place.

Cultural backlash Aisu?

I've been told by friends who lived in Japan for years that up until kids go to school they are pretty much let to go wild and do whatever they like without even the slightest attempt at restraint by the parents. I have no idea how much truth there is to that, of course.

Zym - I don't think that's an accurate generalization, with Japanese in my family (not blood related), this was definitely not the case.

popcorn, anyone?

Sure, as long as there are no babies ;)

Zym: It's all depends on parents...your friend's experience does not apply to entire Japanese parents. I know some parents are just like your friend witnessed, they do not know what "Discipline" means and how important it is.
By the way,I grew up with discipline. I know you go to Dojo, so I assume you know what discipline means:) It boils down to self respect and respect for others.

Baby cries. That is, universal fact. And I don't expect babies
to be well mannered...but I expect parent's courtesy...and it is not discrimination.

the story is in the citizen today.

www.ottawacitizen.com

I found the story interesting and a little disconcerting.

I have a (nearly) 2 year old. At this age, I would absolutely NOT bring her to any place that could be categorized as fine dining. It would be a nightmare and no one would have a good time. Adding to that, it's nice to have a night out.

THAT said, three month old babies are different. Usually, they either sleep a lot or cry a lot, and you generally know which type of baby you have. I could probably have brought my newborn to a nice restaurant with no one's experience being disrupted. I didn't, because I was lucky enough to be able to pump so my child would not starve through my absence. Not everyone is so lucky.

I have a number of friends who breastfed and whose babies would refuse a bottle, meaning that these friends were essentially tethered to their kids until they decided to stop breastfeeding.

It's not so much a question of refusing to embrace a new reality and wanting to hang on to a hipster lifestyle....it's a question of mental health and getting out and socializing and having at least a few things about your life be the same. Post-partum depression affects a huge proportion of women and it's things like feeling you can't ever go out anywhere that contribute to that.

Bottom line, I think the rather aggressive approach taken by Taylor's was wrong. What they should have done is cautioned the family that the restaurant could get a little loud and crowded and let the family make their own decision.

And then, during dinner, they should have just been attentive, and it would have accomplished several things:
1) Quick service = quick meal = not as much lingering
2) If they notice a fussy baby, they could offer to wrap the meals to go
3) If there's no issue, well, then there's no issue and no big bad-news article in the Ottawa Citizen.
(and conversely, if there is an issue, then they deal with it quickly and professionally and no one ends up feeling cranky).

It's odd. There seems to be a gradual increase in the severity of the treatment given by Taylor's, from the original review, to the comments in the Citizen.

Going from what the review said, it sounds like Taylor's firmly stated that the atmosphere and the size of the restaurant wouldn't be appropriate. They never initially said that they reservation would not be allowed. It seems like they were trying to encourage the group to go elsewhere and I don't think that's such a bad thing, given the situation.

There are plenty of fine dining places that are big enough and that are willing to accommodate infants. It's poor customer service to turn the group down, but it's hardly worthy of the HRT.

(I'm curious as well, what time were they trying to make a reservation for? The 17th was a Thursday, so relatively busy...

Wow, so classy, avoid conflict and run to the HRT & Citizen! Is this going to be a case of political correctness vs. common sense? I hope common sense wins.

And the plot thickens. Sylvia Taylor's comments to the reporter do not seem to be intended to either mend fences, or get her out of trouble. Breastfeeding issues aside, I wonder if it is legal for a business to be so direct about not wanting children there? I do have to thank Mrs. Taylor for a chuckle, as I've never heard the excuse that a restaurant is worried about 'junior' taking a sip from Daddy's beer... I wonder if she would be so 'concerned' if her establishment was hosting a small wedding reception, where sneaking a sip of champagne is often sport for the teens. I guess it is only children who cannot eat (and pay) for a full meal that count for this treatment, as teens (who could also illegally steal a sip from Daddy's beer) do not seem warrant the same sort of condemnation and exclusion.

Poor behavior from the owners aside, the Gard family did start this whole situation with their own faux pas. Note from the article that they only reserved for 5 people (all adults), and expected the restaurant to magically produce a sixth (and unpaying) spot. When my son was an infant, we did manage to 'hit the town' a couple times, but we ALWAYS reserved a seat for the baby, and did not expect the restaurant to be able to magically fit a stroller, or some HUGE car seat (and yes,.. they can get huge). I would hazard a guess, that if the Gard family just showed up, but with baby strapped into one HipFunkyFun's baby carriers, there would have been no problem.

It sounds like, from the article, the Taylors offered the group a spot at Domus and dinner on them:

"She says Jackson would be more than welcomed at the Domus Café on Murray Street, and adds that, if Jackson’s mother “would like to get a babysitter and to come in (to Taylor’s), I would be happy to buy her dinner.”

(www.ottawacitizen.com)

The Taylors realized the inconvenience of the situation and tried to make good of it, while staying within their policy. Really, I have no sympathy for these girls.

So everyone that gets a babysitter then go to Taylor's and get a free dinner? Who's IN?????!!!!!!!

XOXOX KC

I completely agree with MRBUNSROCKS and P3JD@DDY.

Children are a part of society and like it or not, many breastfeeding babies need to be in close proximity to their mother pretty much 24/7 for the first few months. That means they generally go where the mom goes. A 3 month old that needs to breastfeed is not likely to be a disturbance to anyone. We can't vilify all parents in advance because a kid MIGHT freak out and the parent's MIGHT not do anything about it. That's just ridiculous.

very interesting topic to see it played out with those opposed vs. those for babies in restos. if you had babies and children, there is a natural tendency to be selfless as opposed to childless and naturally being self-centered. you can quickly get a sense of the quality or potential of nurturing parents and what they have to go through from the language in each persons' comment, the citizen article, reporter, restos, etc...

taken together and lessons to be learned: more empathy, acceptance and professionalism is needed on all parties. there isn't a lot of this in the world to go around.

and stop beating a dead horse. every dining dollar is precious in this fierce competition.

Pej,

I fall into neither camp. I think it should be on a case by case scenario. I just don't see the point in the passive aggressiveness portrayed by the group in question.

They were asking for this sort of an uproar (the comments on the Citizen article, etc) when they decided to take it to the Citizen and the HRT, rather than asking to speak with John Taylor.

Well Pej, here is where I have to disagree with you - I have met a great many selfish people who have managed to procreate. That is essentially the problem here - selfish people who believe their needs^H^H^H^H^Hwants outweigh those of others.

I do agree with Tiana that it is unfair to think that a child MIGHT result in a big scene. But really the problem is that far too many selfish parents take their kids out, and do not immediately vacate the premises when the kids are being a problem. Or they take the kids out and set them up for failure - something we personally try really hard not to do. e.g. making reservations which are near or past the kids' bedtime. Or, you've made reservations weeks in advance, and the kid is having a really bad, fussy, cranky day. Yet you plow forward hell-bent on having that evening out no matter what. We've cancelled a great many plans based on the moods of the kids. It is not fun to do, but it is the responsible, unselfish thing to do. If more people did it, I don't think this would even be an issue to be raised. But far too many people just do not care about others.

heheheh, no intentions about extremes, just varying shades to cover the spectrum.

happy dining!

1. We don't know if they took it to the Citizen or if the Citizen took it to them since this website could be read by anyone.

2. Why should they ask to speak with John Taylor? They spoke with Sylvia Taylor, or does it not count until they ask to speak to the husband?

The bottom line here is, the offended party took the passive aggressive approach to conflict resolution. Had they taken this issue 'up a notch', or taken a different tack altogether and confronted them directly and challenged the matter at hand, the outcome would likely have been much different (ie, they probably would have gone and had dinner there, resulting in no headline story and no baby-drama).

Lesson learned - Next time, just make an RSVP saying it's for 6 people. Guess what - a kid is a person too! The staff of the restaurant will have to accommodate for all members of your party accordingly. There's a real headline in a restaurant ACTUALLY turning away a party of 6 because they won't accommodate you because you have a nursing baby in the party. There is no headline in some hypothetical situation based on recommendations, heresy, etc. What people say and what they do when they're ACTUALLY confronted with a situation like this are two very different things.

Finally, people are assuming the worst in this person and her child. Perhaps rightly so if you know them, this baby/parent team might be a terror. But I don't know that, and I won't assume the worst. In fact, I'll even give them the benefit of a doubt that they know societal norms and how to handle themselves and their child if they became an annoyance because I would hope people would treat me the same way in the same situation.

1. Adami's column is about people who have issues that they want to air in public. He doesn't hunt for stories as much as the story hunts for him.

2. Sylvia's reaction seems really odd to me in all of this. My point isn't that talking to her doesn't count, but that obviously she wasn't going to do anything for them. But, at the same time, taking the issue to HRT and the Ottawa Citizen isn't a good form of conflict resolution.

Adami says that Sylvia Taylor appeared caught off-guard when he called. I'm just saying that it seems like the group didn't take any action in terms of calling either Sylvia or John after the incident, before going to the HRT, the media and this website.

They got what they asked for.

Unbelievable! Well not really... It must have been a real dry news day if this one forced the sacrifice of a few more trees.

I like kids and most others - with the exception of tailgaters. Maybe I should call the Human Rights Commission as my right "for 2-seconds of space" is violated continually on my way to the office.

I think these sassy gals need to understand what a human rights violation really entails. Stop and think about the 148 Canadian soldiers who have paid the ultimate sacrifice recently in defense of real human rights. Imagine forcing women to abide by confinement rules imposed by some prehistoric societal rule set. Imagine not allowing young girls to go to school because they are girls. Imagine when they do attend school, the fear of having acid thrown in their faces on the way home. Imagine seeing the school they enjoy blown to bits by some extremist nut bar who cares about absolutley nothing.

Then imagine living in Canada where you really don't understand what Human Rights actually are, where you can whine incessantly about how hard-done-by you are, where you can force the expediture of countless tax dollars defending your right to not be offended.
Imagine that.
Would not having a 'Common Sense Commission' be a better use of our time? They would be very, very busy indeed.
Being so short sighted is a shame.

Aisu for the win!

Aisu, that is the most sensible comment that has come out of this entire episode...

Aisu, i like what you have said too.

and now, after reading all the comments on the citizen article and seeing the intolerance of children in restaurants period, i am going to be paranoid taking my toddler anywhere. could someone please someone open a restaurant in ottawa that has good wine, great beer, delicious food - by a true chef, reasonable prices AND specifically advertises to bring the kids.

HFF - I have had the good fortune to dine at the restaurant you describe. Unfortunately not in Ottawa but in Costa Rica. It is run by the #2 chef in the country and he is in the kitchen most nights. It had great food, good wine and a children's menu that doesn't include french fries or chicken nuggets but rather things like Petit fillet mignon or fresh pasta with red sauce. Out of the 10 dinners we had in Tamarindo we ate 4 of then here.
So, it can be done! Looks like there is a market out there for some business minded person.

as previously mentioned, here is a 2mo newborn at atelier as one example of a resto that has good wine, beer and delicious food by a true chef. welcome other examples as well!

test tube spoon with fruit palate cleanser dish

There are clearly valid opinions on both sides of this issue. I expect children to be present in casual dining venues, outdoor areas, and early in the evening nearly anywhere. I do not expect to encounter children when dining in reasonably upscale restaurants, particularly later in the evening. When I arrive at a fine dining establishment for my 8pm reservation and find myself seated beside an infant, I am disappointed. I respect that others feel differently, and that is their right.

My issue with all of this is the filing of a Human Rights complaint for what I view to be a fairly trivial concern in the grand scheme of things. I liken this to people who go to the emergency room with a hang nail. It is certainly their right, and they will receive the care they require. However, it is a very costly option for solving a minor problem, and diverts resources funded by our tax dollars away from more critical concerns. The Human Rights Commission is a serious body, charged with a very important mandate. Their operations are funded by our taxes, and I am very happy to know that some of my tax dollars are routed to this critical activity. However, it troubles me to think that those tasked with defending our rights must devote any of their limited resources to processing a complaint like the one we are discussing. I think they have far more important issues deserving of their efforts.

Just an opinion....

Another customer experience (at the bottom of the column):

www.ottawacitizen.com

HOLEEE Make that another customer to Taylor's made to feel unwelcomed in an unpleasant kinda way. Do Sylvia and John Taylor have children? If they did, MAYBE they'd feel and act differently? The article also mentions of many calls and emails received from other guests with children so this doesn't look like an isolated incident or two. You'd think they'd have a more polite or pleasant way for all staff to handle guests with children of varying ages such as to not make them feel low and generate complaints, unless they really want a reputation to chase away customers with babies and children. I mean look at where Taylor's is located in Ottawa South it is smack middle of busy Bank street cutting through the residential neighborhood where there are larger properties and parks with families owning houses and cars rather than the tight congestion of downtown Ottawa and singles and couples barely squeezing into condos. That's the clientele that's around there!!!

Management have a right to manage but everything has repercussions. Coming from a customer service background and having worked in restaurants, hearing instances of customers feeling low just leaves a bad taste in my mouth and it doesn't put Taylor's as a choice place in my mind to bring my business there. I think they really need to step up their game on improving their customer service and putting an end to this issue or stuff like this will break them.

XOXOX KC

C'mon now. What an opportunistic way to get your picture in the papers.

And why bring such a young child anyways. Couldn't the dad or someone else babysit (God forbid someone else should babysit the child) (i am relating to the newpaper article www.ottawacitizen.com).

She is filing a civil rights complaint, talk about your overreaction. How are her civil rights abused here. Taxpayers have to pay for this nonesense.

I don't know the way it was done but in the article, the person refers to something that happened 20 years ago (being called a breeder). Sounds like a touchy subject for her and her sister was "enraged" by being told that the toddler could not go along. Why is she so "enraged" to start with and why did she still want to go where she has been turned around, is NO not clear enough. You can disagree, be upset but enraged, there are anger management classes for this.

I admit that the reasons that Sylvia gave were a bit weak but it was still a no and she did offer an alternative (which is more than i would have done after dealing with "enraged people"):

"She says Jackson would be more than welcomed at the Domus Café on Murray Street, and adds that, if Jackson’s mother “would like to get a babysitter and to come in (to Taylor’s), I would be happy to buy her dinner."

Read more: www.ottawacitizen.com

The situation sucked (i personnaly would have taken the meal alternative of Domus), you tell people about it but such is life, you move on.

There is no injustice here, just a bunch of overly frustrated people who won't take no for an answer.

Taylor's is obviously trying to create a hipster image that does not include children. Personally, I avoid places with that kind of self-important pseudo-exclusivity BS. However, I don't see why restaurants should be treated any differently than nightclubs. Would it make any sense at all to run to the Human Rights Tribunal every time someone is refused entry to a nightclub or bar?

S.Rice brought up an interesting point, several bar have a 21+ rule after ten, what legal basis do they use for that? and why couldn't the same be applied to a restaurant?

As well, places such as the Velvet Lounge (beside Fat Tuesday's) is 25+.

I believe any bar owner should be allowed to have an age cut off at their discretion after a certain time. Maybe that is what Taylor's should do to put a stop to all this controversy.

A frivolous complaint such as this undermines the entire concept of human rights and what a human rights violation actually consists of.

If I understand correctly, at no point were these women actually denied their reservation. They were simply encouraged to reconsider on the basis that the establishment does not cater to young children.

Is it possible that the establishment handled the situation poorly? Perhaps - but that is a far cry from a human rights violation.

Ridiculous.

On the topic of infants in fine dining establishments, I don't see why it would be a problem if that infant was in the care of a responsible and considerate parent. However, I also don't see a problem with an establishment wishing to cater to an exclusively adult crowd.

Like others have mentioned, it's not entirely uncommon for a place to enforce an age limit after a certain hour.

No, it was stated quite clearly in the original posting that they were denied the reservation by the owner.

if Taylor's wants to be a bar 19+ - they should have applied for a bar permit, not a restaurant permit. While going to the human rights tribunal is entirely ridiculous - so are the Taylors. I probably will never go to this establishment, however I've been to many that are very welcoming of children, even if they are small and full. Pookies is one of the best examples, even when I struggled with all 4 of my kids the staff was accommodating.

Somehow I almost feel like organizing a bring your kid to Taylors Food and Wine day - but 4 kids have sapped me of that kind of energy :)

I kind of feel like we are still beating this dead horse to death. Perhaps it is time for the Rathwell gals and the Taylors and all of us to move forward on this and go to a more constructive place of getting along and trying to support each other. We need great restaurants in Ottawa and nice to have them in our neighbourhoods. The Taylors have a record that shows they can offer this. I am sure the Rathwells have many redeeming qualities as well. And can be wonderful, model parents when they have their children out in public, wanting to give the utmost consideration to everyone around them and their good time. It is human nature to be sensitive to our unintended consequences isn't it? Some just do it better than others and some need a little help having it pointed out. Anyone taking on a vindictive stance does not do themselves a service. In addition to bad vibes, it makes you look really, really bad. Even if you are right. My mother's favourite quote, "Everyday is an interview."

Sourdough, just so you know there is only ONE license that a bar/restaurant or pub can apply for, there is no 'adult only' liquor license.

Terry

thanks Terry I stand corrected.

Terry - If there is no difference in license, how come children are allowed in a restaurant, and not allowed in a bar? I've seen stories in Citizen etc where a bar gets raided and fined for having underage people, regardless of whether they drank or not. I did pop by the Ontario Government website, to see what the 'difference' was, but could not easily tell, as you have pointed out the licensing seems to be the same. Is it something to do with the 'licensed areas'?

A question for other foodies: Which other restos in Ottawa 'encourage' an adult only crowd (including the other wine bars... )? I can name a handful in which I've NEVER seen a child/infant, but have no idea whether this is due to policy or tradition.

For our family, we used the the following line to encourage our 4 year old to better learn his use of utensils: "If you can learn to use your utensils properly, THEN you can go with mom and dad when we go to a fancy restaurant". I hope I won't have to eat my words...

I don't know all the details BUT I do know that ORHMA (Ontario, Restaurant, Hotel, and Motel Association) were instrumental in creating a blanket license some years ago. Gone went the Tavern & Bar license I believe in early 90's...

I wonder myself sometimes about under age drinkers, I think it has to do with their own (the Bars) distinction.

We went to Taylor's last evening for a couple of glasses of wine. The 3 of us were seated at the bar which we asked for. The place was quite full and within a half hour all the tables were seated. Pretty good for a hot Monday evening!! Unfortunately, the air conditioner could not keep up with the heat so it was warm. That being said, we ordered a bottle a cold crisp Pinot Grigio for $38.00, it was great. After looking at both the dinner and small plate menu, we ordered from the small plate menu, 4 items for $20.00, 6 for 30.00 etc. We had the 4 item selection, a Maple pate, excellent, smoked trout, fantastic, "Figero" cheese (Like a cream cheese) very good and prosciutto, also very good and not salty. A beet chutney and an onion mix were included. Also 3 types of bread arrived to accompany this with more bread given when asked. More than enough as a snack for 3 adults. I finished with a Kir Royale with very fresh raspberries to garish, our friend ordered the Creme Brulee and a Cappuccino and enjoyed it very much. Total bill including taxes was $106.00, This included the 3 Crown Royal had by one of our group, (not a big wine drinker)
I would certainly go back and it was great not to have any children in sight. The place is too small and a little noisy for kids. We plan to go back for dinner but will make a reservation. Hope this place makes a go of it, We all realy enjoyed it.

This topic shows that customers and restaurant owners in Ottawa should reach a maturity that they're missing right now. What happened is puerile.

Wow! I finally read the article, and those sisters sound like a nasty, miserable bunch of ladies! Heaven help the server who has to take care of them, baby or no! Could they be any more self-absorbed? Sure Sylvia may have handled the situation poorly. The breast feeding comment didn't come from her, but another employee over the telephone who may have gotten nervous and blurted it out. Obviously not the best choice of words, but whatever, people say dumb things sometimes. It's not the end of the world. Furthermore, I suspect the "enraged" sisters made there situation worst by their behaviour when they weren't able to get their way. guess they haven't heard of getting more flies with honey than with vinegar.

Customers always want to be "accommodated," fairly enough, but people (e.g. these crazy sisters!) need to understand that sometimes, it just not possible to be accommodated! Taylor's is TINY. I can see how if they showed with and asked for an extra chair for a baby, there very well might not be anywhere to put that extra chair, even if they one readily available! I have had the pleasure of eating at Taylor's twice, and there really isn't any room for extra chairs. It's a very small space. I feel like these sisters are the kind of people who would show up for a reservation of 5 on Saturday night, with 10 people and then get angry when they couldn't be "accommodated." Sorry, but you can't always be accommodated, and it doesn't mean you are getting poor customer service, or being "discriminated" against. I feel like I am being "discriminated" when i can't walk by dog through a park because it has a children's playground, but I deal with it. That's just life. Get over it and get over yourselves, ladies! Filling a humane right complaint is really ridiculous and as someone commented before, I am appalled my tax dollars are being spent dealing with this petty issue.

Been on vacay and late to this party...

Kudos to the Taylor's. I am going there this weekend!

Finally! A restaurant who stands up to these smarmy, entitled, Glebite breeders!
This isn't about babies or breastfeeding, this is about self-centred people who think everyone should put up with their offspring. As far as anyone can tell, options were offered to these ladies, but NO... they just had to go drama queen.

Now, about babies in the movie theatres...

Your reference to breeders is pretty offensive - are you gay or single? My gay friends use that term but usually in a friendly manner. Don't forget yoda you were young too once. Clearly you don't have kids or want them good for you, but you live in a society with all types of folks, old, young, glebites, and country folk.

I believe it IS actually about babies and breastfeeding. Your comment Yoda was offensive on many levels.. talk about drama queens.

Try not. Breed or breed not. There is no try.

chimi for the win!

No not single or gay - I have a 3 year old! I just try to be a bit more considerate about where I take my kids. I also hire a babysitter when I go to this type of establishment. I am not against breastfeeding or family oriented dining at all. I object to people who are inconsiderate of others. I used the term breeder because the offended party complained about being called this in the Citizen article. Apologies to all breeders (myself included).

An update - Taylors and the family with the baby have reached a settlement. Both sides sworn to secrecy, but babies are now welcome at Taylor's Wine Bar.

www.ottawacitizen.com

Missed all of this story first time round. I agree with the posters who think that a certain amount of sense needs to be exercised by all, and recognise that some people need to stop being whiney when they might reasonably expect children to be present, whilst some parents need to also exercise a certain degree of social responsibility and accept that some venues are not appropriate for them to bring their children for a variety of reasons.

For me, Taylors definitely falls into the latter category. I can only assume that those on the side of these women have either never been to Taylors or aren't possessed of that sense of social responsibility of which I speak.

This outcome is disconcerting -- Taylor's is (was?) a great place for date night and one of our first choices for a quiet, intimate dinner.

Oh please. Taylor's hasn't changed because of this! As always, when you dine out somewhere there is a small chance that there will be one or more noisy people at a neighbouring table. Whether the noisy person is a baby or a man or a woman is kind of irrelevant. If you are offended by the silent presence of a well behaved or heavily tranquilized baby, then the real problem lies with neither the restaurant nor the infant. :-)

I don't think anyone is offended by "the silent presence of a well behaved or heavily tranquilized baby", but a) the likelihood of said baby becoming so noisy or odorous as to be disturbing to other diners is significantly higher than that of another adult, and b) should that instance occur, it is in my experience considerably easier to reason with another adult than with a baby.

I'm completely with Johanna on this. At the very least, there should be no reason why children shouldn't be excluded after, say, 7pm. Also, put yourself in the shoes of other parents. If you've gone to the trouble and expense of getting a babysitter (and I think we all know just how much trouble and expense that can be) to have a precious night out together as a couple, the last thing you want to spend your evening doing is listening to the crying and wailing of someone else's baby.

Why must other people's children be foisted on us absolutely everywhere? Why is it so heinous that we should ask for just the odd oasis of an adult environment, safe from the involuntary excesses of little ones? Why is that such an unreasonable request?

What you're asking for is age apartheid.

Any rules for restaurant admission should focus on *behaviour* rather than age, gender, race, etc. An adult with a raucous laugh after half a bottle of wine could easily be more annoying than a baby.

BTW, I've been in the situation of hiring a babysitter for my own kids only to find that neighbouring diners did not. In every case, those kids were wonderfully behaved or were whisked outside at the first sign of anguish. My wife and I have been going out childless for years and we've never had a meal spoiled by baby-crying. From my experience, this is a non-issue.

Aw, c'mon. "Apartheid"? Gender and race? Somewhat emotive language here. Let's not go getting all militant about this, I'm as pinko liberal as they come but what we're talking about is a mild and sensible admission policy as practiced by all manner of establishments since time immemorial.

What next? I demand to be allowed to take my baby into a nightclub? Why can't I take my three year old into a violent slasher film? IT'S INFRINGING MY HUMAN RIGHTS, DAMN IT!

Nightclub/drinking age restrictions exist for the protection of babies and children. What you're asking for is the opposite -- protection of yourself from the babies! ;-)

"An adult with a raucous laugh after half a bottle of wine could easily be more annoying than a baby."

I beg to disagree. One signifies good food, good drink, good times, the other does not.

"From my experience, this is a non-issue."

Until you're in a restaurant sitting next to a screaming baby and toddler running amok between tables. As happened to us in June when we were out for an anniversary dinner in Prince Edward County. While the grandparents seemed to have an inkling that this was inconveniencing other diners, the parents either didn't realize or didn't care.

So yeah, it is an issue when it happens, and yeah the $150+ you spend on food and wine feels like a waste of money when this is the soundtrack to your meal.

"What you're asking for is the opposite -- protection of yourself from the babies!"

I think what Johnny English is asking for is common decency and consideration for fellow members of society.

The guy I saw last summer changing his daughter's diaper on the picnic table at Hintonburger, in full view of myself and other customers, is just as inconsiderate as the one who brings a crying baby to a restaurant. Actually this guy was worst given that he took the soiled diaper and dropped it in the trash can right next to Hintonburger's front door.

In the end this isn't about babies vs adults, it's about a society that in some ways has gone off the rails by letting our individual 'rights' (such as the right to save money on a babysitter, the right to change a diaper wherever, whenever) take precedence over good manners and respect for social norms.

In defense of Taylors the resto looks pretty small and it would be a tight squeeze bringing a stroller into the resto. The parents could probably place it between two tables but it wouldn't leave much privacy for fellow diners. Also I'm not sure if the restrooms are big enough to accomodate a changing table. As far as I'm concerned the owners are working with the space they have.

As for babies and children in restaurants I believe there is a time and place for them. If I were to go to a more family oriented place I would put up with it because the restaurant accomodates them. But when I go out to eat I enjoy dining in a child free environment so try to choose my restaurants appropriately.

Johanna has put it better than I could. Anyway, why is it always the rights of the consumer that take precedence? Last time I looked, my tax dollars and yours aren't going into these businesses. Within the bounds of reasonable justification private business owners have the right to determine admission to the premises for which they pay, so all we're talking about here is what determines reasonable justification. I would suggest that:

- venue is small and cramped, and therefore not well suited to the paraphernalia that accompanies a small child
- no changing facilities
- business specifically targets an adult audience through creation of an ambience that may be significantly disrupted by the presence of small children

all form reasonable justification for an admission policy that is gently and politely enforced.

Again, I would stress that I am not saying that children should be barred from restaurants. There are many venues in Ottawa that are very welcoming to children, that publish themselves as being such and where it would be entirely unreasonable to complain about their presence. Taylors is not such a venue.

I've been far more traumatized by raucous laughing, obnoxious drunks, overhearing homophobic/racist/misogynistic conversations and other mood killers, than I have from children at restaurants.

Recently overheard discussions about the current Republican party candidates is enough to keep me out of restaurants for a while.

Sure. And just because one thing isn't acceptable, doesn't mean that another is.

If you've got people being homophobic, racist or misogynistic at a volume that can be overheard, challenge them. I've got your back all the way on that one, and I'm fairly sure that most restaurants would as well. That kind of behaviour is unacceptable. It doesn't have anything to do with whether babies should be allowed into all restaurants as an inalienable civil right.

Great restaurants can adopt to handle kids. Some people didn't like blacks sitting beside them either at one time. FF has the right argument. I was recently in DC with my family and we ate at a great upscale, kid friendly restaurant. They put the families primarily in one end of the restaurant. All the kids there were well behaved, partly due to how the restaurant set things up. Raw cookies to decorate before supper, crayons, special menus, freshly baked cookies said kids had decorated for dessert. It was awesome. I think even Johanna and Johnny would approve.

www.firefly-dc.com

Sounds fabulous. I've already made it fairly clear, I think, that I have no problem with children in restaurants, just that in some instances it may not be appropriate and that the restaurant should be able to decide for themselves whether they wish to accept children and babies.

Tell me, have you been to Taylors before? If so, perhaps you'd like to explain how they could place families primarily in one end of the restaurant? And whether you think that it's suitably set up to be providing children with cookie dough and decorating supplies? And where the high chairs would go? And how a parent would change a baby there?

My point is more that restaurants should try to make themselves accessible for all. Whether they do that or not is probably more of the issue. When my kids were in diapers, I've left and gone back to the car to change them when facilities were not sufficient, however most restaurants are accommodating. This includes restaurants like Lumier when it existed and Tojo's in Vancouver. I'm not expecting every restaurant to be entirely kid friendly, just the idea of excluding any particular group is not acceptable. If there are problems with the behavior of any individual in a restaurant they should be asked to leave. They shouldn't be asked to leave until there are issues.

"I'm not expecting every restaurant to be entirely kid friendly, just the idea of excluding any particular group is not acceptable."

@sourdough, is there room to disagree with this statement and not be labelled a baby hater? Because I'm in London later this month for my sister's birthday but here's the catch: she happens to have the most adorable baby on the planet and I'm planning on spending every single moment I can with said baby. Including my sister's birthday dinner. Which -- guess what? -- won't be held at Le Caprice, Scott's or Gordon Ramsay, the usual spots my sister and partner book into for special occasions. As strange as it may seem to some, becoming parents hasn't changed their opinion on the appropriateness of babies in these sorts of dining establishments. And as I've expressed up thread, I'm in complete agreement.

So if you happen to know of anything similar to Firefly in London, please let me know.

It's completely non-child friendly, but if you haven't been you should go to Asia De Cuba.

BTW sourdough, I forgot to comment on your somewhat crass statement about people not liking blacks sitting beside them at one time. Can you really not see the difference between the two situations?

I am kind of torn on this issue. I believe a private business has the right to create the kind of business they desire. I have had occasions where small children (rarely tiny babies, because their wants and needs are usually easily attended to) have disrupted and adult meal at adult prices where I have paid a sitter so I could eat at a place where I should reasonably be able to expect a certain ambiance. However, my two children, now grown, are foodies in their own right and very appreciative of dining at a nice establishment. They got this way because we did take them to nice adult places when they were very small. My eldest at two could be trusted to behave and we received compliments from other diners. My youngest was almost 4 before she could be counted on to behave. But I knew their limitations and acted accordingly. Once we left a McDonalds with a screaming brat who was informed that she would not join us next time we ate out. Next time came and she watched us and her sister leave her behind with a baby sitter, calmly reminding her of why. It never happened again. Many parents think their toddlers acting out are adorable and don't take their leave. My point here is that my children learned this behavior and love of food by being allowed in these nice places. If they were barred from these places they would not have learned how to act and missed out on some fine meals. A bit wordy...but that's why I'm torn on the issue. It boils down to respect I guess.

I don't think any group/type of people should be "banned" from any restaurant. However, I do have certain expectations when I go to certain restaurants. If I go to certain chain restaurants (i.e. East Side Mario's, Boston Pizza, McDonalds etc) then I expect it to be noisy and that there will be a lot of children around. If I am at a bar or pub, then I expect that it will be noisy, some sort of sports will be on tv, and there may or may not be various recreational sports teams drinking beer and eating nachos. If I am paying a couple of hundred $$$ to go to a nice restaurant with a quiet/romantic ambiance, then I expect it to be quiet without children making a fuss or running around. It is not about exclusion, it is more about common courtesy.

I've had dinner out where there were babies or children who barely made a peep all dinner. And I've had WAY too many dinners out where some loud (possibly drunk) customer is WAY too loud and everyone in the place can hear them.
When I go out for dinner I am usually hoping for one type of experience but I understand that I'm at the mercy of the rest of the general public and may get a different type of experience.
If people want to start banning kids because the MIGHT get loud, then they should be as quick to dismiss adults who get loud too.

That point has already been raised and addressed extensively in the thread, but one more time: it is my experience that politely asking an adult to be a little quieter and less boisterous, or asking the wait staff to ask them to pipe down a bit, meets with considerably more success than asking a screaming child to be a little quieter or asking its parents to make it so.

All of which does not change the fact that heart of the issue is actually whether a restaurant should be allowed to determine who they do and do not wish to admit; given we have a licensee informing us that there is only one type of licence available in Ottawa, it makes no sense that a bar or restaurant can implement a policy around the admission of young children without murmur, but a restaurant wishing to do the same is dragged through the courts and the media with the aggrieved screaming about human rights.

Some ppl believe "customer is always right" and they do what the heck ever they want. I am not sure what human rights really means these days.

Johanna, please note I never used the term "baby hater". Johnny, I see no difference in what/who restaurants or others want to ban. If my kids are misbehaving at any establishment, I will remove them as well as myself. Thats kind of the point above. People misbehave, they should leave, child/baby/black/white drunk or othewise. If not they should be served.

Johanna, I wish you well on your trip I'm sure you'll have a great time with your niece. Its your sister's choice where she chooses to take her kids, that's kinda my point in all of this. I don't know if Ramsey has a no kids/babies rule, my guess is not.

I enjoy seeing well mannered children sharing a restaurant meal with their families. But how is this for over-the-top unacceptable restaurant behaviour?
eater.com

Saw that earlier Blubarry. Wow. I'd say that goes over the respect for others line. And on another note how is that possibly effective potty training. May as well leave them in a diaper.