loader image

Court overturns mcdonalds store approval of sugary drinks

On April 15, the Supreme Court of Canada struck dojarvees.comwn a Toronto-area McDonald’s store approval and announced their intention to review the policy in the near future.

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice ruled that the approval was discriminatory against those with diabetes, even though the store’s owner expressed support for the “healthy drinks” initiative, and that in his view the new policy would have allowed the “sugary drinks” option to remain on the shelf.

“This decision will not only affect Mississauga’s restaurants and franchisees; it may impact Ontarians living with Diabetes, our families who choose the ‘Sugary drinks’ option and other Mississauga residents.” said Ontario Minister of Health Deb Matthews. “Canada’s diabetes community is incredibly proud of McDonald’s for this historic더킹카지노 decision, and we look forward to welcoming new members to our diabetes community.”

McDonald’s has taken steps to remove the sugary drinks line from its shelves after a public outcry from some users.

“We take this case seriously. For over 50 years, McDonald’s has helped millions of Mississaugaers who suffer from diabetes by making sugary drinks easy and fun – making it easier to enjoy meals that are healthy,” said Dr. Chris Beauregard, CEO of Mississauga and North Bay Food Development Corp.

“They are part of the Mississauga culinary fabric and this decision is a setback to Mississauga’s food business,” Beauregard said in a release issued by his group.

“Today is about making the changes the Mississauga community, community leaders and consumers demanded, and we will continue working to provide accessible and affordable food while meeting Ontario’s diabetes community’s goals of healthy lifestyles for people living with the disease.”

The judge rejected a challenge by the owner and three other men who argued the sales staff had no right to approve the sugary drinks. However, the court found that as part of an initiative that has since been put out into the public domain, the store has not exercised its “free exercise of discretion” over the decision. The court overturned the sales staff’s decision as discriminatory.

The court also found that even if the sales staff had never read the proposal, they “were fully aware that its language represented ‘approve this’ when the 바카라사이트staff had already been warned by a customer that he wanted a ‘full on-sale and no-wait’ option.”

“The ‘full on-sale’ and ‘no wait’ provisions are s

Close
Close