What is the impact of a server at a restaurant where the complainant and his wife were served information about the cafeteria?

I agree with this characterization. I accept the evidence of the complainant and his wife concerning the conduct of the respondent's server (or hostess). The words used by the servers on two occasions went far beyond merely offering information about the cafeteria. I reject the respondent's submission that its employees merely suggested the cafeteria to the complainant and his family. I find that they were actively dissuaded from entering the dining room because they were a family with young children. In my view, the treatment they received constituted discrimination because it imposed a disadvantage on the complainant (and the other family members) based solely on the complainant's association with his children: Andrews v. Law Society of British Columbia (1989), 1989 CanLII 2 (SCC), 10 C.H.R.R. D/5719 at D/5746 (S.C.C.).