Lone Star Texas Grill — Restaurant in Ottawa

This establishment regrettably continues to employ a bartender—believed to be of Mexican origin—whose conduct is antithetical to the standards of propriety, competence, and civility required by law and expected of any individual entrusted with a public-facing role in a commercial enterprise. Her continued presence in this capacity represents a fundamental dereliction of the duty owed by service providers under statutory and common law.

On multiple occasions, the bartender has been observed in a posture of complete disengagement: seated, inactive, and demonstrably indifferent to the needs of patrons. Such conduct constitutes a flagrant violation of the duty imposed by Section 49(1) of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, which mandates that services be performed with reasonable care and skill. Her repeated failure to attend to guests, coupled with a marked absence of courtesy or initiative, evidences a persistent breach of this statutory obligation and renders her unfit for any role involving client interaction.

Moreover, her manner is pervasively condescending—indeed, she communicates with patrons in a tone that borders on contempt. The combination of dismissiveness, haughtiness, and overt disregard for those she is paid to serve is not merely offensive in tone; it is corrosive to the trust upon which commercial relationships in the service sector are predicated. Under common law principles, a contract for services carries with it an implied term of mutual trust and confidence. Her conduct undermines this foundational term and exposes the establishment to reputational and legal liability.

It is further arguable that the establishment, by permitting such conduct to continue unabated, is engaging in negligent misrepresentation by conduct, within the ambit of the principle established in Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller & Partners Ltd [1964] AC 465. Customers entering the premises are led to believe—by the presence and ostensible availability of bar staff—that they will receive a competent and courteous standard of service. When that belief proves erroneous, and where that reliance results in detriment (e.g., humiliation, wasted time, or psychological discomfort), a cause of action may arise.

Additionally, her habitual conduct may give rise to indirect discriminatory impact under Section 29 of the Equality Act 2010, which prohibits unfavourable treatment in the provision of services to the public. If her dismissiveness disproportionately affects certain groups—whether consciously or not—this may satisfy the statutory test for indirect discrimination under Section 19. The duty on the service provider is not merely to avoid overt bias, but to ensure that no policy or conduct has the effect of disadvantaging protected groups absent objective justification.

In sum, the bartender’s demeanour constitutes: – a continuing statutory violation under the Consumer Rights Act 2015; – a breach of the implied contractual duty of mutual trust and confidence; – an instance of negligent misstatement by conduct; and – potential indirect discrimination within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010.

Given the foregoing, I am compelled to state—unequivocally—that I shall not return to this establishment while this individual remains employed in any client-facing capacity. Her conduct is inimical to the dignity and respect owed to patrons, and her ongoing employment represents not only a commercial misjudgement but a dereliction of the legal obligations imposed upon service providers operating within the United Kingdom.

Management is placed on constructive notice. The failure to take remedial action, including reassignment or termination, may be relied upon in any further proceedings or formal complaints brought to the attention of Trading Standards or any licensing authority with jurisdiction over...

Legal Review Submitted by a Concerned Patron

It is with considerable reluctance that I must publicly articulate my dissatisfaction with the profoundly discourteous and professionally deficient conduct of a female bartender currently employed at this establishment, whom I understand to be of Mexican origin. Her ongoing presence in a front-of-house capacity represents, in my view, not merely a lapse in judgment by management, but a sustained failure to comply with the fundamental legal and professional duties owed by service providers within the United Kingdom.

This individual consistently displays a posture of disengagement and dereliction. On several occasions, I have personally witnessed her seated idly at the bar, neither monitoring the premises with attentiveness nor responding promptly to patrons’ requests. Such inaction and indifference fall unequivocally below the standard required under Section 49 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, which stipulates that services must be performed with reasonable care and skill. Her conduct represents an ongoing breach of this statutory duty, giving rise to a legitimate expectation of redress for affected patrons.

Moreover, the bartender’s demeanour is pervasively condescending. Her tone is discourteous, her gestures brusque, and her overall comportment exudes a palpable disdain for the very individuals whose custom sustains the establishment. Under settled common law principles, the provision of services is governed by an implied term of mutual trust and confidence. The bartender’s conduct extinguishes that trust and renders the contractual foundation of the customer-provider relationship untenable.

There is also a credible basis for asserting that her conduct, when viewed through a legal lens, may give rise to negligent misrepresentation, as recognised in Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller & Partners Ltd [1964] AC 465. The mere visual presence of bar staff suggests a representation that guests will receive attentive and courteous service. Where this proves to be a misrepresentation, and where reliance on such representation leads to distress or wasted time, there exists an actionable tortious breach.

Further still, if it is ultimately established that this bartender disproportionately targets her discourtesy toward select patrons—whether consciously or by effect—her conduct may fall within the ambit of indirect discrimination, proscribed by Section 29 of the Equality Act 2010, and defined under Section 19 thereof. The obligation to treat all patrons with equal respect is not discretionary but legally mandated.

To summarise, her conduct constitutes the following legal violations and actionable concerns: – Persistent breach of statutory duty under the Consumer Rights Act 2015; – Breach of the implied contractual duty of mutual trust and confidence; – Negligent misrepresentation by conduct; – Potential indirect discrimination contrary to the Equality Act 2010.

Until such time as this individual is either dismissed or removed from all public-facing duties, I shall refrain from frequenting this establishment and shall discourage others from doing so. It is incumbent upon management to take immediate remedial action to avert further reputational and legal exposure.

This review places the establishment on constructive notice. Failure to take proportionate corrective action may justify escalation to relevant regulatory authorities, including Trading Standards and any relevant licensing bodies under whose jurisdiction this...

Update: Upgrading to 4 Stars

After sharing feedback about our first visit, the manager personally invited us back to give the location another try—and we're really glad we did.

This time, the experience was noticeably smoother from start to finish. My spouse and I sat on the patio, which was clean, peaceful, and well-kept. Staff were clearing nearby tables regularly, and our drinks were refilled promptly. The music volume was perfect—not too loud—so we could actually talk and enjoy each other's company without raising our voices.

Our server, Margarita, was absolutely wonderful. She introduced herself right away, asked about allergies, and stayed attentive throughout the meal. What stood out most to me was how clearly she spoke and how she faced us when talking—something that’s especially important for me since I struggle to hear in noisy or unclear settings. That kind of attentiveness goes a long way.

The food arrived quickly and was served hot, and the manager stopped by to check in, which made us feel genuinely appreciated. It was clear that our earlier concerns had been taken seriously.

I’m giving one star back for the gesture and accountability from the manager, and another for the excellent service we received during this visit. If this level of service continues consistently, even when they don’t know we’re returning guests, I’d be happy to give that fifth star in the future. We’ll definitely be back again.

Previous Review: 2 Stars

We usually go to the Kanata North location but decided to check out the newer Stittsville one this time. Unfortunately, the experience didn’t meet expectations.

Service was clearly impacted by understaffing. Although the restaurant wasn’t full, the servers were struggling to keep up. A hostess took our order initially, and halfway through the meal a different server took over—who wasn’t familiar with what we’d ordered. The transition felt disorganized, and there didn’t seem to be much communication between staff. The table next to us also looked frustrated and mentioned similar concerns.

We came specifically for wing night, but they had already sold out of wings—which was disappointing, especially since the hostess was still advertising it. If we’d known that ahead of time, we would’ve gone to the Kanata location. But since we’d already ordered drinks, we stayed.

We ended up ordering tacos. Mine were cold, though my partner’s were fine. The flavours were good overall, just not what we’d come for, and it ended up costing more than we’d planned.

Also, I think the soda machine was out of syrup—my drink tasted like carbonated brown water, and it still cost $4.

On the upside, the music wasn’t blaring like it often is at Kanata. It was actually nice to have a conversation without shouting.

That said, we’re not sure we’d return to this location. The Kanata servers are more experienced and the overall experience is usually smoother. Honestly, even driving out to the Barrhaven location would’ve been a better...