Let Them Eat All They Can Eat

By Marcel Strigberger

There is a dearth of law on salad bars. The number of establishments offering all you can eat salad bars (AYCESB) is forever increasing, yet the public is at a loss as to its rights with respect thereto. If a restaurant offers you an AYCESB, when does the right to return for a further helping terminate? What are the limits of the salad bar? These and other questions must be answered in order to avoid rampant chaos.

I have studied the situation recently and have found anything but uniformity in the way the police and the Courts have been dealing with salad bar offences.

The following cases are all unreported, but you can write to me for a copy of the reasons for decision if you enclose 50 cents per page and your name is Henderson.

In Cobourg, Ontario, one Jack Lashley recently entered an Outback Steak House and consumed a strip loin steak and a serving of AYCESB. He had his hat and coat on and was about to leave the establishment when he decided to return to the salad bar and grab a carrot stick to nibble on for the road. He was promptly arrested by two off-duty Ontario Provincial Police constables and charged with theft under $200.00.

The presiding Judge convicted Lashley. In his reasons his Honour Hoss J. said:

The moment Lashley put on his hat he formed the intention to quit eating. He was telling the world, 'I've had enough; I can't eat anymore. He was severing all ties with Outback. He was crossing the Rubicon.

His Honour gave Lashley a conditional discharge and made him do 50 hours of community service work.

Shortly thereafter, one Pete Barns succeeded in finishing a chopped steak dinner at the Outback in Welland. His meal included the AYCESB. At the conclusion of his meal he put on his coat and left the premises. A few moments later he remembered that he had forgotten his hat in the booth. He returned, found his hat, and holding his hat in one hand he approached the AYCESB and nibbled on a raw mushroom. The restaurant manager Joe Leblanc observed the incident and lunged at Barns whereupon Barns whacked Leblanc across the face with a celery stick.

Barns was charged with theft under $200.00 and possession of a dangerous weapon. His Honour Moose J. threw out the theft charge. In his reasons, the learned judge said:

Unlike the Lashley case, the accused herein did not wear his hat. He kept the option open so to speak. Merely putting his coat on, hat still in hand, is not a sufficient actus reus from which I could infer that Barns was no longer hungry, that he could eat no more.

Citing Horsely on Hats, 4th Edition, the learned judge went on to say:

The law is clear on this point. When a man takes off his hat in a restaurant, he is telling everyone he is hungry. The situation is different if he takes off his kilt.

With respect to the weapons charge however, His Honour found that Barns went too far and accordingly a conviction was entered. His Honour asserted that the public had the right to be protected from this type of behaviour and accordingly he gave Barns a suspended sentence and prohibited him from carrying celery for two years.

The question is what happens when there are no hats involved? Statistics have shown that unlike the residents of the rest of Ontario, Metropolitan Torontonians are less likely to wear hats unless they live in Scarborough, where there is a preponderance of Goodyear and Champion Spark Plug caps.

In the recent McDermott case the accused had left Big Mother's Restaurant in Brampton with his wife Barbie. He drove approximately one half hour and was in Willowdale already when he realized that he had forgotten his five-year-old son Rick at the restaurant. McDermott and his wife returned to Big Mother's around an hour or so later, stopping for a couple of beers along the way. When they arrived, they found Rick still at the salad bar where they had left him about an hour and half earlier, playing tiddly winks with the cucumber slices. McDermott seized the opportunity and went over to the AYCESB and started catching the cucumber slices with his mouth as they were flipped into the air. His wife Barbie jokingly egged him on telling him she'll give him a dime for every cucumber slice he catches.

McDermott, his wife and Rick were observed by an underground Peel Regional Police officer who had been staking out the restaurant (no pun intended). The matter came before the Court in Brampton where Mr. and Mrs. McDermott were charged with a number of offences including conspiracy to commit theft under $200.00, theft under $200.00, fraud accommodation, possession under $200.00 and running a common gaming house. They were also charged with contravening a Brampton By-law, to wit, playing checkers in a family restaurant knowing that there is nude dancing going on in the restaurant next door. It seems that the Crown offered to drop the possession under $200.00 if the McDermotts were to plead guilty to the other charges.

We don't know what will happen in this one as the trial date at Brampton has been set for January 14, 2004. An early date was selected as the McDermotts have been denied bail. The boy, whose name I cannot divulge any more at this stage, was let off with a caution.

It is evident that the law is in a state of flux. It is expected that confusion and disarray will continue until Parliament stops wasting its time with proposed amendments to the Divorce Act, the Bankruptcy Act and other jejune legislation and pushes through the long awaited Bill C-303, being the Salad Bar Act.

______________

© 2007 Marcel Strigberger. This article CANNOT be copied or reproduced in any way without the expressed written consent of the Author.