Quebec moves to crack down on restaurant no-shows
CBC
Quebec is looking to crack down on restaurant no-shows by allowing owners to charge clients who don't honour their reservations.
The Quebec government announced changes to the Consumer Protection Act on Wednesday and with consultations underway, citizens have 45 days to submit their comments regarding the draft regulation.
Quebec's restaurant association has said that no-shows can cost businesses tens of thousands of dollars every year.
Citing data from the association, Quebec's Office de la protection du consommateur (OPC) said in a news release that the phenomenon of no-shows can lead to financial losses averaging $49,000 per establishment every year, with some restaurants facing losses nearing $100,000.
Under the proposed rules, restaurants could charge clients who ghost their reservations up to $10 per person. But there are conditions.
The rules would only apply to groups of five or more people and those groups would have up to three hours prior to their reservation to cancel.
Restaurants would also have to inform people of the potential charges before the reservation is made, and send out a reminder between six and 48 hours beforehand.
Furthermore, if only one member of a party shows up, the remaining no-shows can't be charged.
Finally, fees cannot be applied before the time of the reservation and restaurants need to make it easy for clients to make cancellations.
Quebec's Junior Economy Minister Christopher Skeete said restaurant no-shows has been a growing phenomenon in recent years and the province is the only jurisdiction in North America where charging clients for missed reservations isn't allowed.
"What we're seeing ever since the end of the pandemic is that people make multiple reservations for groups and then decide what they want to eat that evening," he said.
"The result is that sometimes, they forget to cancel those reservations and they leave the restaurant owners having to scramble to refill those seats."
The new measures, Skeete said, aren't meant to compensate restaurant owners for lost revenues but rather to create a "a disincentive for people to abuse reservations."
"Somebody who has money on the line is more likely to act in the right fashion," he said.