gordon.dewis.ca - Random musings from Gordon


Why you should boycott Nathaniel’s restaurant in Owen Sound

June 06, 2008 @ 13:06 By: gordon Category: Current affairs, Seen on the 'net

According to a story on CTV’s website, a waitress in Owen Sound was fired after she shaved her head for a local cancer research fundraiser, raising in excess of $2,700 in the process. Now, she’s not bald like Lt Ilia from the first Star Trek movie — she has a buzz cut. But the owner of Nathaniel’s restaurant, Dan Hilliard, effectively fired her, though apparently she’s still on the payroll and she can return to work when her hair grows back.

This smacks of a human rights violation and I hope that she files a complaint with the Ontario Human Rights Commission.

Personally, I will never spend a penny in Nathaniel’s or any other restaurant Dan Hilliard may own and I encourage you to do the same.

46 Responses to “Why you should boycott Nathaniel’s restaurant in Owen Sound”

  1. If she’s suspended with pay and can return to work, I don’t see a problem. She’s in a customer-facing job, and the owner has a right, in my opinion, to specify the kind of image he wishes to portray to customers. If bald chicks isn’t the image, then he should be free to take steps. In fact, keeping her job open for her to return is really going the extra mile.

  2. wow says:

    This to me, is unbelievable in this day and age. Here is a woman who went out of her way for the good of others, and gets treated like crap by her boss. This man has no heart!! What if she actually had lost her hair to cancer treatments…would he still have given her the bums rush? Probably. I hope his restaurant goes out of business for the lack of respect he has shown not just his own employees, but the world.

  3. Camryn says:

    I agree that it’s a human rights violation. I seriously doubt Nathaniel’s takes issue with male wait staff sporting a shaved head. Even if her motivation (raising money for cancer) is taken out of the equation, this is unequal treatment and therefore wrong.

  4. Paul says:

    I’m with you Gord! I’m boycotting this place!

    Of course, I’ve never been to Owen Sound… and I don’t plan on it… so I guess I’ve always been boycotting that place. I guess they’ll have to suffer from not getting my business, which they never had before…

    .. I’m sure they feel the loss :$

  5. Squid says:

    I got distracted on my post and clicked submit before I was done.

    I will add that given what this head-shaving was for, it might be considered a mitigating circumstance, and in this case it will certainly generate some bad publicity. I don’t know what human rights are violated here, however. The charter of rights doesn’t say you have a right to a bad haircut at your job.

    Personal appearance is a valid consideration in customer facing jobs. I know that a generation of people have been raised thinking it’s their right to look as weird as they like, but what they think is immaterial. In the real world, if the employer says “traditional haircuts” then that’s the way it is. Do it or work somewhere else. These sorts of limitations are accepted all the time… “I don’t own a suit / didn’t feel like wearing suits” for example, is not considered a defence to being fired for not wearing a suit at your banking job.

    So the restaurant kind of looks like it’s run by jerks, but making this a human rights complaint looks just as stupid in my book.

  6. Mara says:

    I hope the owners and managers and anyone who supports them gets cancer

    • jonathan hilliard says:

      for your information there has been lots of cancer in our family, and i wouldnt widh it on anybody even my worst enemy , you are no better than anyone else in the world!!!!!!

  7. Rob says:

    I shave my head. Does this mean that I’m not welcome to eat at Nathaniels since I might offend the management?!

  8. Mara says:

    It does violate human rights because a bald male wouldn’t have been sent away from that position. It’s called gender-discrimination.
    By the way, if the managers thought she shaved her head to “look different” or because she didn’t “feel like wearing hair” then obviously they are clueless. They knew why she had shaved her head. They knew she was going to do it. They should have been proud of the fact that their staff was this compassionate. If she was a cancer patient and had to undergo chemotherapy, would they have done the same to her because it didn’t meet their “standards”? And that would have been totally okay, right? I think just a teenie bit different from getting a nose ring.
    What about amputees? People like that don’t meet their “standards” either? Sorry, you have a plastic forearm, you’re not good enough to work here. Go get a real arm. How about someone with a hare lip? Trust me, you don’t want to open pandoras box when it comes to who is acceptable enough to work for you.

  9. gordon says:

    @Squid: The policy of the restaurant owner of having “hair at an appropriate length” can be discriminatory against some people, such as people who are bald, and discrimination is, generally-speaking, illegal in Canada. What is “an appropriate length” anyways? What you consider appropriate might not be what someone else considers appropriate, but I don’t think that most people would consider a guy with short hair inappropriate, so why is it inappropriate for a woman?

    It will be interesting to see what the human rights commission has to say about this if she files a complaint, which is what the Ontario Labour Relations Commission said was the best line of recourse.

    According to the various articles out there, this is the first time something like this has happened anywhere in Canada in relation to a hair-cutting fundraiser for cancer research.

  10. Taree says:

    TSK TSK!
    Consider this Dan Hilliard..the number of people living with cancer, the number of NEW cancer patients this year in Ontario, AND the percentage of people expected to develop cancer within the next few years.
    You have just ticked off an extremely large group of people.
    You should have supported your worker, allow her to wear an “ask me why Im bald” button, chip in on the donations and possibly get some GOOD publicity for your restaurant.

  11. Rhonda says:

    As a cancer survivor, l think the firing was in very POOR TASTE! As a single mom l underwent a mastectomy, chemo, radiation. I went bald and had to support a household at the same time. Should my employer have fired me because l was missing a breast, or had no hair. This is unbelievable in this day and age. I think any empoyer should be proud to have a waitress who would raise money for cancer and raise awareness at the same time. This is an insult to anyone who has ever had cancer !! I am walking in the Weekend to End Breast Cancer fo the second year. My team has raised over $40,000 in the fight against cancer. Anyone wishing to make a donation can go to http://www.endcancer.ca. Perhaps the owner of the restaurant would like to make a contribution !!

  12. justPassingBy says:


    The violation is on the unequal treatment base on gender.

    The argument here is that a bold/shaved “male” waiter in a restaurant would be fine where as a bold/shaved “female” will not get the work because of look. This is a form of discrimination based on how you perceive a woman should look like.

    I believe that the owner should have the power to decide how his restaurant’s look/mood is. We are only kidding ourselves if we think places like Milestones and Cactus Club (we have them in BC, not sure if they are national chain) only “happens” to hire young and cute looking waitresses. However, this should have been clearly communicated to her BEFORE her shave. Instead, the owners dodged the question, probably fearing another kind of lawsuit and now they are in this situation.

    All I am going to say is that Dan Hilliard is one of the biggest fool I’ve heard of in recent history. Restaurants survives on good publicity and words of mouth. I won’t be surprised if his booking drop by 50% right away and probably will gradually go out of business in the next year or so. There are only a handful of situation he’ll survive. 1) he apologized publicly and the public and the waitress publically forgive him. 2) he manages to scrape by until this whole thing blows over (and boy do we have short-term memories around here) 3) He changes the name hopes no one found out he’s still the owner/chef.

    Great chefs has great heart, and that’s why they produce great food. People are going to judge his heart base on this incident, although they don’t know him at all.

    Poor. Foolish. Man…

  13. Grant says:

    What century is this? I think women with short short hair are very attractive. Plus there is no chance of a long hair arriving in my soup.
    He must be one of those dinosaurs that still insists all his women must have long hair and never change it.

  14. Steve says:

    I agree that the owner shouldn’t have laid her off but this is NOT a human rights violation. Being able to wear your hair a certain way is not a human right. A employer has the authority to dictate to their staff what appearance is appropriate for the workplace, and that inlcudes hair style.

  15. Jim says:

    Steve – and if that owner decides that the white male is the the appearance he considers most appropriate, is that his right? If he decides that female circumcison is the only acceptable appearance for a woman, is that his right? What about red hair, Steve-o? Does the owner have a right to refuse to hire anyone with red hair becuase it clashes with the decor.

    Your argument is fundamentally flawed before you begin.

  16. Lee says:

    Um.. wow!

    I thought I had the dumbest boss in the country… apparently not!

  17. John says:

    Nathaniels must die. Make it a quick death and boycott the philistines. This is incredible in a country like Canada. People like Stacey and Terry Fox are what differentiate Canada from more egocentric and selfish countries.Die Nathaniels die.

  18. Squid says:

    The argument here is that a bold/shaved “male” waiter in a restaurant would be fine where as a bold/shaved “female” will not get the work because of look. This is a form of discrimination based on how you perceive a woman should look like.

    No, it isn’t. It’s a matter of how you think your employees should look. It would be no different than requiring female employees to wear skirts, or male employees to sport moustaches. There is no human right that support the premise that you can wear your hair how you like at work. I’m sure she’ll try to make exactly the argument you are suggesting, but she will lose if it ever gets to court.

    The other issue here is the reason WHY she shaved her head. One might imagine that having shaved it for a charity stunt, she’d be cut some slack on the company policy – and she may yet. Let’s face it… this wouldn’t have made the CBC if it wasn’t for a charity thing.

  19. Squid says:

    The policy of the restaurant owner of having “hair at an appropriate length” can be discriminatory against some people, such as people who are bald,

    You’re right…

    … except she’s not bald, she shaved her head. Apples. Oranges. one is a medical condition that cannot be changed, one is a choice.

  20. gordon says:

    There are varying degrees of baldness and I know some people who are balding, but not bald, who opt to shave their heads completely (think: cueball).

    The waitress, on the other hand, isn’t bald like a cueball. She just has very short hair.

    Both are situations are choices and neither is a medical condition. By your logic, both should be treated similarly and in Mr. Hilliard’s world they would both be fired. Is that right?

  21. Pat says:

    Right on TAREE — Oh what fools they’ve been! Having been so concerned about what the customers might think, seeing a waitress with a shaved head delivering food to the table, they have turned the tables on themselves.

  22. Squid says:

    Possibly – likely the balding person wouldn’t be hired in the first place if it was an issue. more likely, if hair is an issue, the balding person shaving down their scraggy mop still has the advantage of saying “I can’t help it, it’s shaved or scraggy”, and the person with a lid like mine shaving it down still has the disadvantage of saying “I chose to do this.”

    Your haircut is not a human right. Say it until it sinks in.

    You’ve seen how I wear my hair, and you know my job… do you think I’ve never taken flak for it? How do you think the military and the police get away with punishing staff for (lack of) haircuts?

  23. Squid says:

    Oh, for other readers, I am neither military, nor police. I work in a customer facing job in a conservative industry.

  24. gordon says:

    The military can get away with it because they have the legal authority to order a soldier to do almost anything. And, until a few years ago, the military was exempt from the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, wasn’t it?

    The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms says:

    2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

    a) freedom of conscience and religion;
    b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
    c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
    d) freedom of association.


    15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

    How is being fired because she chose to express her support of cancer research not a violation of 2b? And how does firing a female employee with short hair where a male employee with short hair probably wouldn’t not go against 15(1)?

  25. gordon says:

    Of course, those determinations wouldn’t be made unless a complaint was filed with someone like the Ontario Human Rights Commission.

  26. Jackson says:

    The owners of this restaurant are definitely heartless. For the people working there, it might be better to look for another place of employment because not only are they heartless but as management in a public sector, they are incredibly dumb.

    Instead of advertising the proud accomplishments of such a wonderful staff and rewarding her, they have done the opposite. They could have proclaimed this accomplishment as part of their restaurant attraction and increased business significantly.

    All patrons would be proud of her and visit more often. On hearing this I would have visited the restaurant, become a new customer and supported it to keep such good people and business going even if food was mediocre. I often go to restaurant because I like the staff and are aware of something special about them especially a caring loving individual whom I know would look after me the customers with such warmth and heart.

    So please leave the restaurant for not only are the owners uncaring and cruel but extremely stupid people and business managers. You would not want to depend on them for your livelihood.

  27. Squid says:

    The military has been subject to the charter since 1990… and you still have to have your hair cut.

    She wasn’t being fired for supporting cancer research. She was being fired for presenting an appearance deemed inappropriate for the work for which she was hired.

    Section 15 of the charter does not apply because she is not being discriminated based on any of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability unless she’s planning to argue that her ethnic culture involves shaved heads… and then she’s going to have to prove that. There’s a very weak argument about discrimination based on sex that could be made, but it would be weak if the employer argues that a deliberately shaved-head man would also meet the same fate.

    Section 2 of the charter does not apply because she is not being censored or blocked by the government. Section 2 has never been interpreted to apply between private citizens. In other words, you’re free to censor my comments on here, for example, and I can’t pin you under section 2b of the charter. However, if the GOVERNMENT comes down and censors my comments here, I can pin THEM under the charter.

  28. Jason Bo Green says:

    "Let’s face it… this wouldn’t have made the CBC if it wasn’t for a charity thing."

    Um, duh – that’s the whole point. Do you think people would care this much if she’d shaved it just for kicks? Do you really think we’re that easily taken for a ride? It’s too bad your opinion of others is so instinctually low.

    Any employee in any industry has the right to shave their head to support finding a cure for cancer – say that slowly until it sinks in. Squid may be willing to get on his knees to comply with what his boss deems is acceptable – Stacy Fearnell chose to shave her head to help others. Guess who’s the bigger person? Ask that slowly until it sinks in, buddy. The answer might teach you something.

  29. Squid says:

    The answer teaches me that if you don’t like your boss’s rules, you should get a new job. It’s not even a matter of whether your boss is right or wrong. Do you really want to work for someone who treats his employees in ways you don’t like?

    >>Do you think people would care this much if she’d shaved it just for kicks?

    Why wouldn’t they? If it’s such a human rights issue, the fact of the charity thing is not relevant. If nobody would care if it wasn’t a human rights thing, then why are so many people trying to make it a human rights thing?

    I don’t care why Stacy shaved her head. I care that our legal system is about to be abused because that costs everyone and it hurts everyone.

  30. sgw555 says:

    I really, really hope that Nathaniel’s Restaurant sees a dramatic, immediate decline in sales as a result of all of this. It would be great if, at the end of 2008, the people who own Nathaniel’s look at their bank statements and are forced to realize that they made, say, $150,000 less than they did in 2007.

    Then perhaps they’d realize that there is an economic cost to being narrow-minded and judgemental. And there’s nothing that social conservatives hate more than losing money, because they tend to think they are more ‘entitled’ to it than “Those flaky hippy-dippy types who are ruining this country with their gay marriages and store clerks who can’t even speak English” they’re always complaining about.

  31. Exmortis says:

    The issue here is NOT why or how or even that it was for a charity. Remvoe the reason and you have an employee who did NOT follow known employment criteria. Change the example to having skulls imprinted on her face for 3 weeks until the ink wore off, and the result is the same,, a choice of appearance was made in violation of the rules of employment. Everyone is fixated and focused on what has nothing to do with the employer’s choices to remove her from work. Remove the reason, and your left with a choice. Balding men is NOT the same, they have no choice but to live with a lack of hair, those who loose their hair due to disease of medical treatments or issues are no where near the same issue. Your not comparing apples to oranges, your comparing apples to military aircraft.

    Although I do believe this action was done in poor taste, the bottom line is simple. The right course of action for this women would have been to approach her employer, ask him about the act. Possibly he may have supported it, even made the resaurant a supporter of the cause? Its one thing to show up on your day for work, violating the rules, and entirely another to approach your management with a desire to support a cause that may alter your appearance for a time. How you handle a situation is as important as the situation istself. I thiok everyone should be asking her, what the heck she was thinking? Knowing violating employment criteria, with out discussion with her employer.

    I am surprised Gord at yrou stance, thouigh I guess I am not surprised at your reaction to the employment action, I thought you would have suggested other actions. Like an employer tax? Force her to pay some over the top tax like some tyrant Baron. Another idea would be to assign her no value and just fire her? Two otions you are familiar with.

    But in the end, the resaurant will be unfairly looked upon, and little anyone does will change that.

    POWER TO YOUR BOYCOTT!! I hope the all of dozen or so who read this never attend dinner at this resaurant, I mean we all travel to Owen Sound on a regular basis to eat?

    Or not.

  32. Dan says:

    I think legally the owners of Nathaniel’s had every right to lay off this woman. But then she also had the right to go public with the story. She was apparently laid off because she refused to wear a wig… fine but it seems to me to be a bit of sour grapes that the owner felt he had the right to create consequences for her actions (refusing to wear a wig) while expecting to be shielded from the consequences of his own actions in laying her off. He’s upset that she went public, oh cry me a river. So it’s fine if he’s giving the consequences (an entire summer of lost wages) but not OK if he’s the recipient of consequences?

    Definitely boycott Nathaniel’s.

  33. shana says:

    I think you all need to get a life. So what if he laid her off, what you don’t know is his side of the story. The media has blown it to hell, and now the woman who shaved her head is apologizing to the owners of Nathaniels for making such a mess of things. He didn’t lay her off for shaving her head for Cops for Cancer, he laid her of because she doesn’t meet dress code. The man who owns this business donates countless amounts of money to many charities, including Cops for Cancer. If you have never been to Nathaniels then you obviously don’t have the class to attend that restaurant. It is a high class restaurant, and the staff are expected to follow dress code. She was warned in advance that if she shaved her head, her job might be jeopardized. Call is gender discrimination if you would like, but thats the way the world works. A man can get away with a bald head in the work place, but if the dress code states that a woman must have a certain length, then deal with it. She knew the code before she did it, and was told there were other ways to raise money if she wanted. She was never punished for wanting to help a charity. So for all you people who are boycotting, thats to bad, because you don’t know what kind of wonderful food you are missing. He is a good man, a great chef and you are all being immature and just adding to the problem. Get over yourselves and find something better to complain about.

  34. Dan says:

    Shana – Guess what the media got hold of this story and published it. Is the owner being unfairly portrayed in the media, maybe he should just get over it, that\’s the way the world works. There are consequences for the owner, regardless of whether or not he is a charitable man because this decision was wrong or at least appears that way to most of us. Was he so charitable as to offer her \"paid\" leave? Somehow I doubt it. Maybe he was within his rights to lay her off, but the general public are well within their rights to discuss this matter and to decide individually whether or not to be patrons of this restaurant. Certainly the woman in question was well within her rights to shave her head and the owner was well within his rights to enact consequences, but then potential patrons are also within their rights to also enact consequences against Nathaniel\’s. And I guess the owner will just have to deal with it.

  35. Violet says:

    i USED to eat there all the time… will never set one pretty pedicured toe in there ever again. whatta jerk!!!

  36. Violet says:

    i used to eat there all the time… but i will never set one pretty pink pedicured toe in there ever again! : (

  37. Rick says:

    So, without reading anything above yet, I’d have to say this to those who are stupid enough to agree with Dan Hilliard’s decision. How about this scenario then: you have a good or great employee which is something you should be greatful for and one day through no fault of her own she gets cancer or another illness and loses all her hair. Do you fire her or reprimand her because of that or are you too stupid to see that it is not really relevant in this day and age of employees at say Walmart etc. who have things like noserings, tongue rings, earrings sticking out of many places on their face etc.? Talk about an arrogant bunch of people to think they have the right to dictate how long a person’s hair should be, man or woman’s! I’m old school and have raised my kids too but if they are doing something good or great for others, what do I do, take ’em out in the backyard and whip ’em because they decide to puncture their face with earrings? They go on to become brain surgeons but I still think they’re bad because they chose to express themselves which is actually their right to do so as long as they aren’t out hurting others? If I had to summarize my thoughts on what I heard about this wonderful woman and her thoughtfulness to do something like she did, I’d say “humanitarian.” For those who thought it was Dan Hilliard’s right to do what he did, “HYPOCRITES!” On the other hand though, guess some would think Hooter’s having women show their “assets” in the way they do is fine too? I could care less as long as the food is great and service too but their main feature at he place is definitely for the one reason and people know it. If I went to Nathaniel’s restaurant I doubt if how long a person’s hair is or isn’t should concern me but what would piss me off is knowing that the owner is a moron and could stoop to such a level of idiocy. One can only hope if he ends up bankrupted or sued, magically it only hurts him and anyone decent there moves on in life unscathed. Not a perfect world though, loss of business will hurt those who don’t deserve it, this guy is trash no matter what though. Now I’ll go and read what I already know will be above, a few idiots who think that was a good solution and she deserved it huh???????

  38. Rick says:

    And there you have it, the “other people with cancer examples” and my points exactly. I read the above replies and now i’ll say this too. I asked an employer of a business one time “why do you allow THE worker to sport all those earrings and those diff. colours in their hair?” Remember, I said I’m old school. I wasn’t condemning it, was asking because I know some will rant and rave as they’d think that was their right as a “customer.” The employer replied “that’s one of my best workers so I allow it and yes, some grandma’s and parents make comments but I just ignore them. Self-expression doesn’t amtter to me if what i really need is a good, honest and caring worker which is what i pay them to be-expect them to be.” How’s this now, it won’t matter what any of our interpretations will be, this owner is gonna fry when it comes to the issue of discrimination and there’ll be alot of support for her side and yes, from some men too. How about an example of an interpretation for say the colour PINK, some of you will think that colour means gay correct? Really? How were you raised and what kind of an attitude should you be judged about then? To end here too, think about all the strange people in this world, something like a neighbour who was later found to have buried dozens of people in his basement and his neighbours all commented “gee, I would have never known, he seemed so normal.” Yet when you looked at a person like that, cleancut, no earrings, no tattoos, seemed simple, normal, an everyday citizen??? How about some of you people realize that a person like the waitress is being judged by that jerk who probably has a pretty shallow opinion about himself to begin with. For the customers who think they have any right to dictate what their server looks like maybe they should go off and start one of those “perfect societies” so often thought about in the past. Yep, perfect world means the stupid are still allowed to co-mingle with those of us who actually have compassion for others

  39. FYI: The restaurant owner apologized in the paper today, and reiterated that she was not fired.

    >>How about this scenario then: you have a good or great employee
    >>which is something you should be greatful for and one day through
    >>no fault of her own she gets cancer or another illness and loses all
    >>her hair. Do you fire her or reprimand her

    That is not relevant to this situation. Stacy doesn’t have a medical condition that caused her hair to fall out… she shaved it off. Not the same thing at all. That’s the point people are missing in this. It’s not a matter of Stacy having cancer – she doesn’t. It’s a matter of a bad haircut. Totally, utterly, completely not the same thing.

    >>it is not really relevant in this day and age

    Bull. It’s as completely relevant today as it was 100 years ago. Anyone who thinks is isn’t is deluded. Just because some employers don’t care doesn’t mean that all employers don’t care – or shouldn’t care.

    >>noserings, tongue rings, earrings sticking out of many places on
    >>their face etc.?

    People with such things often find it difficult to get professional, customer-facing work. In many jobs such things are actually dangerous. Don’t kid yourself about this. Sure, there may be some minimum wage jobs that will take you with a head full of metal and a keychain hanging off your balls, but there are plenty of jobs that won’t.

    >>For those who thought it was Dan Hilliard’s right to do what he
    >>did, “HYPOCRITES!”

    Hardly. When I ran my company, people had to present a pleasing appearance when in front of a customer. I wouldn’t have gone on about a shaved head (especially not for a cancer charity thing) but you can bet I would have for a whole raft of other things such as piercings and tattoos.

    Personally, I have long hair. I’ve been given the waggly finger about it a few times in previous jobs. I quit those jobs and went somewhere else. I practice what I preach. I didn’t rant out the company.

    >>For the customers who think they have any right to dictate what their >>server looks like

    Customers have every right to dictate what their server looks like. They do so by complaining to management and voting with their feet. If I think the people who face the customers at your business are freaks, I don’t patronize it. If you want business, you cater to your customers’ requirments.


    The work place isn’t for self-expression. The workplace is for work. Express yourself on your own time.

    >>Yep, perfect world means the stupid are still allowed to co-mingle with
    >>those of us who actually have compassion for others

    It’s got nothing to do with compassion.

  40. So here’s a question for all you shaved-head fetishists. Compare and contrast the employer suspending her for having a shaved head with an employer suspending an employee for only showering once a week.

  41. Dan says:

    “Compare and contrast”

    Sure. If you suspend a restaurant employee for not showering then your patrons will thank you and business will improve. Suspend a an employee for shaving her head for charity then your patrons will flee in droves, your business will fail and you will become a local pariah.

    Is that compared and contrasted enough?

  42. Phyllis says:

    Is that to say that if I work there and get cancer that I can\’t serve customers while having chemo? That would be a human rights violation.

  43. Allen says:

    Have these guys gone out of business yet?

  44. Billy says:

    The Mom must have started this. Is she on welfare?

    • gordon says:

      Which “mom”? The waitress? I’ve never met her. I wrote this entry in response to the CTV story.

      At no point do I recall reading anything about her being on welfare.