Airdrie resident Scott Milton has filed a complaint with the Alberta Human Rights Commission against local taxi company, Alliance Airdrie Taxi Service, after being refused service because he would be travelling with his service dog.
“I am just shocked that in 2015 I even have to deal with this,” Milton said.
Milton requires the assistance of a seizure response dog to help Milton with his epilepsy.
He said on July 18, 2014 he called Alliance Airdrie to book a cab and informed the dispatcher he’d be riding with a service dog.
“It was the dispatcher that refused service. They wouldn’t send a cab,” Milton said, adding the dispatcher repeated, “no dogs, no dogs” and then hung up on him.
Milton said after the incident he “went directly to the City” with the complaint said he received a “poorly worded” apology letter from Alliance Airdrie. He sent a copy of the letter to the Alberta Human Right Commission and they felt he could move forward with the complaint.
The Alberta Service Dogs Act states, individuals with disabilities who are accompanied by qualified service dogs must be allowed access to any accommodation, services or facilities where the general public is allowed.
To be a qualified service dog under the Service Dogs Act, the dog must be trained through an Assistance Dogs International (ADI) accredited school. Milton’s said his dog, McCoy, is certified and wears the appropriate service dog vest.
Milton said he filed the complaint with the Human Right Commission on Sept. 9, 2014, “because of how (the incident) was dealt with.”
According to a December 19, 2014 letter from the Human Rights Commission Milton was carbon copied on, the Commission did not receive a response from Alliance Airdrie.
Though the Commission would not comment on specific cases, including Milton’s, Susan Coombe from the Commission said in an email to the Airdrie City View, “I’m told that it is very infrequent that a respondent does not respond to a complaint.”
According to the Commission’s bylaws, if a respondent (in this case Alliance Airdrie) fails to respond to a complaint, the director may appoint an investigator to determine what action, if any, be taken.
“We’re just at a loss of why they haven’t responded,” Milton said. “To not answer (the complaint) is horrendous.”
Steven Brown, call centre manger at Alliance Airdrie, said the incident is all a misunderstanding.
“That was basically a misunderstanding between a new dispatcher,” Brown said. “He was not familiar with service dogs. (The dispatcher) was told the driver does not like a big dog in the van.”
“We did implement right away that every new trainee is taught about how to separate service dogs from pets,” said Mirza Taimour Baig, company manager with Alliance Airdrie.
He said an email apology was sent to Milton and the company offered to phone Milton directly with a further apology but had no phone number for him.
Milton said his phone number wa available to Alliance Airdrie as it was collected when he first ordered the taxi on July 18 2014 and was on the paperwork he filed with the city in his initial complaint.
Milton said, “if I had spoken to someone, there wouldn’t have been a Human Rights complaint.”
He said he will leave it to the investigator to determine what action should be taken to address the situation. The decision could result in a monetary settlement.
Milton will also file a Human Rights complaint against the City of Airdrie on Jan. 22 for issues he sees with the taxi and limousines licensing bylaw. In particular he is concerned with sections 5.1-M and 5.1-N.
5.1-M states the chauffeur shall not refuse to serve any person because of race, colour or creed. Milton said the bylaw is not addressing religious discrimination or discrimination against disabled people. “When you have that in the bylaw you’re giving cab companies (the right) to discriminate even on religion because that is how the bylaw can be interpreted,” he said.
5.1-N states a chauffeur can refuse service in certain instances including if a passenger is impaired by intoxicants, requests the chauffeur carry an animal in the taxi – other than an animal that is a service animal – insists on smoking, is disorderly or abusive.
“A taxi company could go back and say look at the City bylaw because it’s conflicting,” Milton said.
Sharon Pollyck, manager of legislative services and corporate communications, said the bylaw is not contradictory.
“Regardless of race, colour or creed (passengers) can be refused service if impaired by drugs or alcohol,” she said. “We don’t interpret that as a contradiction.”
Though she said Milton “should not have been refused service if he had a service dog,” she said the 5.1-M does not specifically state disabled people because, “we would never single out a disabled person in a bylaw because we treat them like any other person.”
Pollyck said when a complaint is filed at the City level, the taxi company could face a fine of $250 for a first offence and subsequent offences in the 12-month period following the first offence could be fined up to $500 per additional offence.
If the City receives three complaints the license may be revoked for that company.
As for Milton he has found another taxi company in Airdrie that he said has no problem with his service dog riding with him and said he will continue to educate people about service dog teams.
