Pub refused to allow assistance dog inside

Matthews v Woombye Pub Trading Pty Ltd [2022] QCAT 301

Type of outcome: Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal decision (QCAT)
Year: 2022
Contravention: Discrimination
Attribute/s: Impairment – reliance on an assistance dog
Area: Providing goods or services
Outcome: Complaint upheld
Compensation: $8,000

Summary

A man who relied on an assistance dog was prohibited from bringing the dog inside the pub with him, and on one occasion he was banned from the pub for one month. The man was required to either leave the dog outside when he entered the pub or sit outside with the dog.

Based on the evidence, the tribunal was satisfied that the dog was an ‘assistance dog’ within the definition for the purpose of the Act, namely a dog trained to perform identifiable physical tasks and behaviours to assist a person with a disability to reduce the person’s need for support. The tribunal accepted that training of the dog does not require training by an approved trainer or an approved training institution. The tribunal considered that the behaviours that the dog was trained to perform need only involve obedience and companionship in order to assist the man’s need for support. In this case the dog was trained to be next to the man and the dog calmed him when he was anxious and introduced him to many people.

The man had a valid Translink Assistance Animal Pass, however when there was a change in management of the pub, staff insisted that the man could not bring the dog inside the pub because he did not have an identity card issued under the Guide Hearing and Assistance Dogs Act.

The tribunal considered that on the occasions where this occurred, the man was treated less favourably than a customer of the pub who did not suffer from depression or anxiety and who did not rely on an assistance dog, and who sought to eat or drink inside the pub. The tribunal found that the comparator would have been permitted inside the pub to eat or drink, and that it was irrelevant that staff believed it was a statutory requirement that the man produce an identity card issued under the Guide Hearing and Assistance Dogs Act. The tribunal determined that the man had been discriminated against on the basis of his reliance on an assistance dog and that the pub had engaged in direct discrimination within the meaning of section 10 of the Act.

On another occasion the man entered the pub with the dog wearing a vest and with a leash attached. A staff member asked for the dog to sit outside, and a discussion ensued with reference to the correct paperwork for the dog and the man abusing bar staff. It resulted in the man being banned from the pub for a month. The tribunal considered that on this occasion the refusal of entry was for two reasons – that the man did not have the correct identification for the dog to be permitted inside the pub, and the man’s prior conduct towards a staff member when the dog had nearly been hit by a car.

The tribunal referred to section 10(4) of the Act, which provides that if there two or more reasons for the less favourable treatment, the treatment is on the basis of an attribute if the attribute is a substantial reason. The tribunal considered that this means the reason must be one of ‘real significance’ or an ‘operative’ reason. The lack of identity card under the Guide Hearing and Assistance Dogs Act was a reason of real significance or an operative reason, and a further instance of the pub’s policy not to allow the man inside the pub with the dog. The tribunal found that this was direct discrimination of the man.

However, the tribunal considered that the reason for the ban was the prior conduct of the man towards a staff member.

The pub relied on the exemption that allows a person to act in a way that is necessary to comply with, or is specifically authorised by, an existing provision of an Act. The pub claimed that under the Liquor Act 1992 it was required to provide and maintain a safe environment in and around the pub, and that permitting a small dog that was off-leash and/or not under the control of the man would contravene that requirement.

The tribunal said the difficulty with that claim is that the pub had maintained that the man was refused entry with the dog because he did not have identification under the Guide Hearing and Assistance Dogs Act, and there was no evidence that it would have allowed the dog inside the pub if it was on a leash and under the control of the man at all times. The tribunal found that the refusal to allow entry to the man and his dog inside the pub was not an act that was necessary to comply with, or specifically authorised by, the Liquor Act 1992. The tribunal said that this finding does not mean that the pub couldn’t require that the dog to be on a leash as a condition of entry inside the pub, but rather the pub is not entitled to refuse entry to the man with his dog merely because the man could only produce a Translink Assistance Animal Pass instead of an identity card under the Guide Hearing and Assistance Dogs Act.

The tribunal ordered the pub to pay the man $8,000 in compensation.

Matthews v Woombye Pub Trading Pty Ltd [2022] QCAT 301 (2 August 2022)