Tavern On The Hill — Restaurant in Ottawa

Tavern on the Hill – Deceptive Trade Practices and Personnel Misconduct

I begin by acknowledging the commendable aesthetic revitalisation of Tavern on the Hill, which reflects a thoughtful investment in the ambience and functional layout of the premises. Equally, the self-service concept represents a progressive shift towards operational efficiency and customer autonomy, mitigating the need for reliance upon conventional table service. In principle, this innovation ought to eliminate the adverse experiences often occasioned by discourteous personnel. Regrettably, such optimism was not borne out in practice.

Despite the self-service arrangement, I encountered bar staff—specifically female personnel—whose conduct was demonstrably unprofessional, marked by an attitude of indifference and, at times, overt discourtesy. Such demeanour is incompatible with any hospitality setting, let alone one positioning itself as a premium establishment. However, the gravamen of this review lies not in the regrettable human interactions, but in a pattern of conduct that raises profound legal and ethical concerns.

The menu in circulation explicitly stipulates that the house Margarita is prepared using Altos Blanco (Olmeca Plata), a tequila of reputable provenance, being 100% blue agave. This representation constitutes a material term, reasonably relied upon by the consumer when electing to make a purchase. It has come to my attention—and through direct experience—that the establishment has substituted this ingredient with Jose Cuervo Especial, a substandard mixto product containing non-agave sugars, whilst continuing to market and price the cocktail as though it contained the advertised premium spirit.

This substitution amounts to misrepresentation under the Misrepresentation Act 1967, as the establishment knowingly induced consumer transactions through materially false statements. It further constitutes a misleading commercial practice under Regulation 5 of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008, which expressly prohibits the dissemination of inaccurate or deceptive product information.

Moreover, the conduct is contrary to the Food Information Regulations 2014, which mandate that the labelling and presentation of food and beverage items must not mislead as to composition or quality. A breach of Regulation 19 therein may trigger criminal sanctions.

Continued misdescription of product contents—particularly where premium pricing is maintained—may also give rise to liability under the Business Protection from Misleading Marketing Regulations 2008, and may satisfy the statutory criteria for fraud by false representation under Section 2 of the Fraud Act 2006.

In sum, what purports to be a modern, refined establishment is undermined by systemic misrepresentation and substandard conduct. I trust that the appropriate regulatory bodies shall investigate these concerns forthwith, and that corrective measures will be undertaken...

Despite the commendable physical refurbishments and the implementation of a self-service model—presumably intended to mitigate the detriment of prior staff discourtesy—my experience at Taveren on the Hill was regrettably characterised by egregious managerial conduct and deceptive commercial practices.

Specifically, a female manager displayed a degree of incompetence and hostility wholly incompatible with the responsibilities of her position, thereby undermining any intended benefit of the self-service arrangement. However, the gravest concern lies not in service shortcomings, but in what appears to be a wilful misrepresentation of alcoholic products, amounting to both a breach of consumer protection legislation and a contravention of licensing obligations.

At the time of writing, the establishment advertises and prices its margarita cocktails as being made with Altos Blanco (Olmeca Plata)—a 100% agave tequila, described as its "house" spirit. However, following only a brief period of operation, Taveren substituted this specified tequila with José Cuervo Especial, a mixto tequila of demonstrably inferior quality and one that does not meet the threshold for 100% agave designation. Crucially, this substitution was not disclosed to patrons and the original premium branding and pricing remain unaltered.

Such conduct constitutes a prima facie violation of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (CPRs), specifically:

(a) Regulation 5, which prohibits misleading actions likely to cause the average consumer to make a transactional decision they would not otherwise have made. Here, the deliberate representation of cocktails as containing a premium tequila—when, in fact, a low-grade alternative is used—meets the threshold of deception under the CPRs.

(b) Regulation 9, which imposes criminal liability where such misleading actions cause or are likely to cause the consumer to take a transactional decision they would not have taken otherwise.

(c) The Fraud Act 2006 may also be engaged under Section 2 (Fraud by False Representation), where there is demonstrable intent to gain financially through misrepresentation.

In addition to statutory violations, the behaviour may infringe the provisions of the Licensing Act 2003, insofar as it requires premises to trade responsibly and uphold fair commercial practice under the licensing objectives.

This is not a mere matter of brand substitution; it is a material deception of the consuming public and a dereliction of ethical and legal duty. The continued charging of premium prices for an inferior product, while falsely advertising the original spirit, is unequivocally unlawful, unethical, and wholly irreconcilable with consumer rights.

I urge prospective patrons to exercise caution and request full ingredient transparency before purchasing. Regulatory inspection is not only warranted...

The location is very beautiful, but the circumstances today led to an unfortunate experience. It was very hot and there were wasps everywhere - especially swarming the bar.

I ordered a Tavern Spritz, which according to the menu was a cocktail with black currant liqueur, red cinzano, sparkling wine, and soda. I received a drink that tasted heavily of pineapple and other fruits. I reread the menu and saw that the Mocktail Spritz had pineapple as its first ingredient and thought they must've misheard me and just charged me for the cocktail. I went back to the bar and expressed that I didn't think my drink was correct, however the bartender quickly let me know she had put the blackberry liqueur in it. They told me that the drink was meant to taste heavily of juice. I conceded that I must've been wrong and also didn't want to put them under more stress as the heat and wasps were already a lot.

I went back to the table and reviewed the menu again, and nowhere does it say that there is pineapple juice or orange in the Tavern Spritz. I don't know whether the drink I was given was the Mocktail plus black currant liqueur, or it really was just the Mocktail (couldn't taste any alcohol), but it wasn't the drink I ordered. I was unhappy that a solution wasn't offered and I was dismissed immediately.

TLDR: went here today in the 30+ degree heat, that plus the wasps and incorrect drink = a...