Edmontonians: Classy people, or classiest people?

[Asher]

Edmonton: Full of classy people. See?

[notyoueither]

Actually, you are right on that. I quoted from your quote from the Journal.

However, here is the original CTV Calgary report that was put up midday.

http://calgary.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20100101/CGY_oilers_restaurant_100101/20100101/?hub=CalgaryHome

Oilers blamed for partially unpaid New Year's Eve tab
Updated: Fri Jan. 01 2010 18:26:45

CTVcalgary.ca

A Calgary restaurant owner is furious after he says the Edmonton Oilers didn't cover a huge New Year's Eve tab.

Players with the team were dining at Osteria De Medici, an upscale family-run restaurant in the northwest community of Kensington, after their game against the Calgary Flames Thursday night.

Maurizio Terrigno says the team was ringing in 2010 with a group of 45 people and ran up a bill close to 18 thousand dollars.

But when it came time to pay, Terrigno says the players refused to pay the total amount.

He says the group, which included team captain Ethan Moreau, tried to negotiate a discount on their bill and at one point refused to pay entirely.

At issue was the liquor bill which totalled over eight thousand dollars.

The players argued they should pay by the bottle for dozens of shooters purchased during the party.

But the restaurant charged them for each one individually.

At one point, Terrigno threatened to call police and eventually, the players paid about 12 thousand dollars of the total bill.

Terrigno says it is more about principle than the money. The restaurant plans to donate the amount the players eventually paid to charity.

He says he is mainly upset for his staff who didn't receive a gratuity.

Osteria De Medici frequently hosts high profile guests.

Members of the Calgary Flames are regulars and former U-S president George Bush dined there on his last visit to Calgary.

The Edmonton Oilers are already in San Jose to play the Sharks Saturday night.

Friday afternoon, the owner says someone with the team contacted the restaurant and said the tab had been negotiated and paid.

But Terrigno says he never agreed to the reduced amount.


Team officials confirm with CTV that the players and their wives and girlfriends attended an event at the restaurant.

But when the bill came back, it was too high and the players asked staff to recalculate it.

The new total was given to them and officials say the players paid and left.

(with files from Sue French and CTV Edmonton's Bill Fortier)

[Asher]

Then maybe he is a liar. Don't know, but I'm also pretty sure the Oilers were still abusive.

[notyoueither]

Abusive? I'd be abusive to a person trying to rip me off for $6K. Staff, not so much.

The claim is repeated in the televised clip. Again, no direct quote, but the reporter relates that the owner claims to have paid the grat from his own pocket...

Yeah, right.

[Asher]

Glad to have your admission

[notyoueither]

[Wezil]

It is NOT theft if it's a "our word against theirs" situation. The Oilers can say "we expected the billing to be done per bottle", the restaurant can claim this was never agreed, then the cops say "a judge can decide" and that's that.

This.

It is a civil matter, not criminal (they didn't duck out without payment at all). Cops wouldn't arrest for this situation.


As to the rest of the argument, two points:

1) Are they really "Edmontonians"? Reps maybe but natives I doubt.

2) Is it an Edmonton problem? Frankly I substituted "Albertans" for "Edmontonians" and had a good read. There, you two can attack me instead of each other now.

[notyoueither]

Moreau is from Ontario...

[Asher]

The most amusing thing about all of this? Even if the restaurateur is a crook and the team was polite, does this bill for a self-professed 90 minute stay scream 'classy' to you?

- -1 hors d'oeuvres -- $450.00

- -45 SP dinner Oilers -- $4,500

- -45 mineral water -- $357.75

- -1 blow job (shooters) -- $39

- -1 blow job (shooters) -- $250

- -1 Crown -- $24.00

- -1 Sljivovica -- $200

- -44 Hiball -- $286

- -3 Amarone 2000 res -- $450

- -2 Brunello 99 -- $260

- -1 Ripasso Sup 03 -- $60

- -4 Ripasso 05 -- $260

- -8 Dom Perignon -- $2,800

- -2 Mags Dom -- $1,000

- -5 Conundrom 07 -- $375

- -2 Moet & Chandon -- $200

- -3 Moet & Chand Nect. -- $450

- -52 Menabrea -- $338

- -8 Coors light -- $44

- -30 Bacardi -- $165

- -65 Tequila -- $487.50

- -62 Grey Goose -- $434

- -18 Sambuca White -- $126

SUBTOTAL -- $13,556.25

GST -- $677.98

[notyoueither]

Screams hockey player to me.

Does this scream classy to you?

http://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abpc/doc/2008/2008abpc240/2008abpc240.html

Citation: R. v. Terrigno, 2008 ABPC 240

Date: 20080820
Docket: 060058906P10101
Registry: Calgary


Between:


Her Majesty the Queen

- and -

Michael Terrigno



Decision of the Honourable Judge C. L. Daniel


CHARGES
[1] Mr. Terrigno is charged with obstruction of a Peace Officer engaged in the execution of his duty on January 14, 2006.


ISSUE
[2] Essentially the Crown and Defence witnesses gave divergent versions of events, therefore, credibility is the issue.


FINDINGS OF FACT
[3] After hearing and considering the evidence, the demeanor, credibility, sobriety and opportunity to observe events, all in light of the R. v. W. (D.), 1991 CanLII 93 (S.C.C.), [1991] 1 S.C.R. 742 (SCC) decision, I make the following findings of fact.

[4] On January 14, 2006, Sergeant Brar, a Calgary City Police officer with eight years experience, was on patrol with his partner, Constable Hollingsworth, in a marked police vehicle. Both were dressed in their standard issue uniform.

[5] At 3:10 a.m. Sergeant Brar saw a southbound vehicle at 10th Street and Kensington Road N. W. It entered a one-way-eastbound alley, travelling westbound. Upon emerging from the alley, the offending vehicle stopped in a no-stopping area. The driver, Donna Riopel, exited the vehicle, walked eastbound to Mr. Terrigno’s house, spoke to him at the door, and returned to her vehicle. Sergeant Brar conducted a traffic stop for the driving and stopping infractions. He put on his vehicle’s emergency overhead lights and flashers and approached her car on foot. While speaking to her, Sergeant Brar noted signs of impairment by alcohol.

[6] As Sergeant Brar asked for Ms. Riopel’s driver’s license, insurance and registration, Mr. Terrigno exited his house, dressed in pants, with no shirt and wearing fuzzy slippers. He approached Sergeant Brar from behind as the Sergeant was speaking with Ms. Riopel.

[7] Mr. Terrigno demanded to know what the police were doing, and told Sergeant Brar he could not speak to Ms. Riopel, as she was his client and he was her lawyer. Sergeant Brar explained that this was a police matter and instructed Mr. Terrigno to stand back.

[8] Constable Hollingsworth repeated these instructions to Mr. Terrigno as he did not step back as instructed. Again, Mr. Terrigno intervened, asking: “Why are you stopping her?” Sergeant Brar replied, “Stand back.” Mr. Terrigno stated: “I am a lawyer.” Sergeant Brar told Mr. Terrigno to wait on the curb. This repeated exchange went on for three to four minutes. Mr. Terrigno refused to follow Sergeant Brar’s directions, so Sergeant Brar told him that if he did not follow his direction he would be arrested for obstruction. Mr. Terrigno then moved to the curb. The Sergeant finished speaking with Ms. Riopel and went back to his police vehicle to make some inquiries on his CAD system.

[9] Mr. Terrigno, during this intervening time, ran over and spoke to Ms. Riopel. He then ran inside his house and shortly thereafter, emerged wearing a parka. He gave Ms. Riopel a breath mint, which she put in her mouth. By that time, Sergeant Brar had decided to administer a Roadside Screening Device test. In order to do so, he intended to read the Roadside Screening Demand to Ms. Riopel and then bring her to his police car for the test.

[10] He approached her vehicle. Mr. Terrigno was in the way, so Sergeant Brar asked him to move. Mr. Terrigno did not move. He was asked to move again. This went on for 30 seconds. Mr. Terrigno yelled at Sergeant Brar, telling him that he “was an idiot,” that he “did not know what he was doing,” and reiterated that he “was a lawyer” and was “trying to assist them with their investigation.” He was told: “Your assistance is not required.”

[11] Sergeant Brar got Ms. Riopel out of her vehicle and started to walk her back to his police vehicle. Mr. Terrigno obstructed Sergeant Brar’s path to the police vehicle, putting his nose a couple of inches from Sergeant Brar’s. He repeated that he was a lawyer and that Sergeant Brar did not know what he was doing. Sergeant Brar told him several times that he did not need Mr. Terrigno’s help and to move out of his way or else he would be arrested for obstructing a Peace Officer. However, Mr. Terrigno did not listen. To this point, Sergeant Brar had been very patient with Mr. Terrigno. He had exercised a great deal of restraint and had given Mr. Terrigno every opportunity to get out of the way, but in fact, Mr. Terrigno’s behaviour was obstructing Sergeant Brar in the execution of his duty.

[12] At this point, Sergeant Brar believed that he could not carry on with the impaired driver. Mr. Terrigno was physically preventing him from doing his job in administering the Roadside Screening Device test. He was preventing Sergeant Brar from moving in the direction he wanted with the female driver. The only way past Mr. Terrigno was through him. One last time, Mr. Terrigno was told to move out of the way and told that if he refused he would be arrested for obstructing a Peace Officer.

[13] Mr. Terrigno continued in the same rude and insulting manner as before, saying: “You are an idiot,” “I am her lawyer,” “I am trying to help you,” and “You don’t know what you are doing.” He also called Sergeant Brar a “loser” and “a piece of ****.” As well, he stated that he was going to complain about Sergeant Brar and told him he was “not going to make Sergeant”[1]. After this went on for a few minutes, Sergeant Brar decided to arrest Mr. Terrigno for obstruction of a Peace Officer. He advised Mr. Terrigno he was under arrest and after a brief struggle (where Mr. Terrigno was flailing his arms about), Mr. Terrigno was handcuffed and placed in the back of Sergeant Brar’s police vehicle. Both Sergeant Brar and Constable Hollingsworth absolutely deny Mr. Terrigno’s head was slammed on any part of the police car or that he could have suffered any injury as a consequence of being handcuffed, and I believe them.

[14] Upon his arrest, Mr. Terrigno’s abusive behaviour and language escalated to an even more offensive level. He stated: “You are a piece of ****…I will complain about you…you are a loser…you suck ****…your wife is out sucking **** right now…I have lots of money and I will get out of this and you will not get a promotion.” Finally, he stated that Sergeant Brar was making a mistake and that if he let Mr. Terrigno out right now, he would not make a complaint against him. Sergeant Brar noticed a smell of alcohol on Mr. Terrigno’s breath.

[15] Sergeant Brar tried to read Mr. Terrigno his Charter rights at 0320 when he placed Mr. Terrigno into the police car. During this time, Mr. Terrigno was still yelling. When Sergeant Brar asked Mr. Terrigno if he understood his rights, Mr. Terrigno replied, “No!” Sergeant Brar asked him what he did not understand and Mr. Terrigno replied: “You are a ****ing idiot!”

[16] Meanwhile, Ms. Riopel had been cooperative. She stood by quietly and waited for another unit to show up for a place for her to sit. A Roadside Screening Device Demand was made, but Sergeant Brar had to wait 15 minutes because she had consumed the breath mint Mr. Terrigno gave her. She ultimately provided a breath sample and it registered a “Fail,” indicating her blood/alcohol level was over the legal limit for operating a motor vehicle.

[17] Rather than arrest her for impaired operation of a motor vehicle, since he had no assistance and could not deal both with her and Mr. Terrigno, Sergeant Brar gave Ms. Riopel a 24 hour suspension. All of this took about 20 minutes and during this time Mr. Terrigno remained seated in the back seat of the police vehicle. Sergeant Brar did not want to wait for a tow truck, so he called for another police unit at about 0352 to wait in his stead. It took a half-hour to forty-five minutes for the second unit to respond to the scene.

[18] During the wait, Mr. Terrigno complained the handcuffs were too tight. The police checked and discovered the cuffs were loose on one hand and while there was a ‘pinky’ width between the skin and cuff on the other hand, they loosened that cuff as well. Before they left the scene, Mr. Terrigno told Ms. Riopel to go to his house. Apparently, there was a woman in his house he wanted removed. Mr. Terrigno yelled at Ms. Riopel telling her to “Get that ***** out of my house!”

[19] During transit, Mr. Terrigno spit a number of times at the back of the plexi-glass barrier between himself and the police and down on the floor of the back seat. He was told to stop spitting and replied: “**** off.” At the arrest processing unit, Mr. Terrigno continued to be belligerent. He belittled and berated Sergeant Brar and his partner, saying his father was “a millionaire,” that they “had a good lawyer,” and so he “could do whatever he wanted.”

[20] As his pockets were being emptied, Mr. Terrigno alleged that Sergeant Brar stole $100.00 from him. The Staff Sergeant was required to investigate this allegation. When he thought no one was looking, Mr. Terrigno turned and smiled arrogantly at Sergeant Brar. He threatened to “embarrass” Sergeant Brar in court. Ultimately, Mr. Terrigno was released on a Promise to Appear.

[notyoueither]

CREDIBILITY

[21] After carefully observing the witnesses as they testified, and after considering the reliability of their respective memories, their demeanor, and the evidence they gave, I find the Crown has proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt. While the accused and Ms. Riopel gave evidence, I do not believe their testimony, nor do I believe their version of events could reasonably be true. Where their evidence diverges from the evidence of the Crown witnesses, I clearly prefer that of the Crown witnesses.

[22] The police constables gave their evidence in a cogent and reliable manner. They were both sober and attentive to their duties. Sergeant Brar was very observant and made copious notes of actual words spoken by the accused. Sergeant Brar and Constable Hollingsworth agreed the accused was face-to-face with Sergeant Brar and impeding Sergeant Brar in the execution of his duty. I believe them. Sergeant Brar was able to go back and forth through different times of the incident without faltering in his recollection. His evidence was logical and credible.

[23] I find Sergeant Brar was quite tolerant and patient in all the circumstances, which, to put them at their best, were annoying and frustrating. At their worst, Mr. Terrigno’s comments were disturbing in their abusiveness, offensiveness and arrogance, particularly coming from a mature adult learned in the law and impliedly respectful of it.

[24] I find specifically that Mr. Terrigno was either deliberately lying when giving his version of events, or, because of his impairment on the night in question, he simply did not have an accurate recollection of his words and actions at that time. At the time of the incident, he was a law student; currently he awaits his call to the bar. A criminal conviction will certainly be problematic for him. It is a compelling motivator.

[25] Mr. Terrigno gave his evidence-in-chief in a rehearsed manner. It was apparent that he was basing his self-serving testimony on what he believed he would have done and not what he actually recalled doing. For example, when asked if he got in front of Sergeant Brar, Mr. Terrigno stated “there is just no way I did that. I am smart enough not to do that.” Observing the way he said that gave the distinct impression that he was not actually recalling the event but rather was basing his answer on how he would have acted with sober aforethought.

[26] It was on cross-examination, however, that Mr. Terrigno’s credibility really faltered. It became apparent he had consumed more alcohol than his examination-in-chief had disclosed and that this alcohol consumption had badly affected his memory. For instance, there was a long pause as he hesitated before responding as to what time he ate supper that evening. He used words of assumption such as “probably,” and his cross-examination was peppered with words like “I don’t recall” and “I don’t remember.”

[27] There are several critical things he simply did not remember, which indicated his memory of the evening was severely impaired. For example, he did not recall lending his cell phone to his friend Ms. Riopel; he did not recall spitting at the police officers in the back of the police car; and he did not recall seeing the Medic at the Arrest Processing Unit. All of these things most certainly happened. He did not recall initially coming outside shirtless, but it was so notable that both police officers specifically recalled it; after all, it was January 9th, it was the middle of the night and it was cold outside.

[28] One might assume that given his age of 33, his successful completion of both a Law program and an MBA program, that he might be supposed to normally possess characteristics of prudence, logic, respect for the law, decorum and good judgment. However, this was clearly the opposite of the way he acted on the night in question. One hopes the offensive, imprudent and disrespectful behaviour he displayed towards Sergeant Brar can be solely attributed to the over-consumption of alcohol and the contribution that played with respect to his extraordinary lack of judgment. His characterization of his words as “inappropriate” at trial, much minimizes their actual atrociousness. When he uses the phrase “that is not my character” he needs to be mindful of how his character was actually displayed on the night in question. When he stated: “I had a right to talk to her,” he justified his intrusion stating the incident happened outside his house, that he was a law student and that she was his friend. His lack of appreciation, on the night in question, for Police Officers engaged in the lawful execution of their duty and how that might override what he perceives as his “right” to intervene, is yet another example of his impaired judgment.

[29] Mr. Terrigno’s evidence had internal inconsistencies - initially he stated that he came out in his sandals, but on cross-examination, he indicated that he could not recall if he came out in fuzzy slippers. The fuzzy slippers were as remarkable as was the fact he left his house without a shirt on. The policemen made specific note of it, and I am convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Terrigno initially emerged from his house shirtless and wearing fuzzy slippers. It was quite a memorable sight and one the policemen well-recalled. Mr. Terrigno was uncertain as to when he finished dinner; how long he was actually drinking at the Roadhouse bar; and whether or not he had two or three beers there.

[30] Mr. Terrigno stated that he “maybe” had two or three drinks at the bar after dinner as well as wine with dinner. At another point, he stated he had a “couple of beer” at the bar, and did not remember if he paid for the drinks. He acknowledged that his memory is not as clear after he has been drinking as it is if he is completely sober. I find he was guessing as to how much alcohol he had consumed that evening, and that his guesses were low.

[31] Mr. Terrigno’s recollection of events strains credibility. When testifying, he gave the distinct impression that he was trying to calm things down; that he was the voice of reason; and that he was immediately compliant when asked to step out of the way. I find the total opposite was actually the case. He stated that his admonition to Ms. Riopel was to “calm down”, to “relax”, “not be emotional”, to “cooperate”, and “not to get excited”. Yet, this was most certainly not his demeanor. To the contrary, he was loudly yelling with obnoxious, incendiary and extremely abusive language. He was deliberately confrontational. I find as a fact that he purposely misled his status to the police officers, stating he was a lawyer as opposed to a law student, in an attempt to give himself greater credibility and influence with the police. I find as a fact that he never stated that he was a law student as he maintained at trial; that he must have forgotten saying this due to his inebriated state, or that he was lying at trial.

[32] When he says he was cooperative and stepped back when commanded to do so, I find this is either a lie, or he does not recall doing so given his state of inebriation. I find he was deliberately right in Sergeant Brar’s face – nose to nose - and that he blocked Sergeant Brar’s passage while Sergeant Brar was attempting to relocate Ms. Riopel, all the while mouthing abusive and arrogant taunts.

[33] When he states he did not supply Ms. Riopel with a breath mint, I find this is either a deliberate lie or he simply does not recall doing so given his state of inebriation. Sergeant Brar had to hold off administering the Roadside Screening Device test as Ms. Riopel had admitted the consumption of the breath mint Mr. Terrigno gave her, and he did not want to skew the results. Sergeant Brar saw the hand to hand exchange and the placement of it in Ms. Riopel’s mouth. I believe him when he states that he saw this transfer occur and disbelieve both Ms. Riopel and the accused when they state this did not happen.

[34] Mr. Terrigno was evasive when asked questions about his words and behaviour. I believe that in the cold, sober light of day, he clearly recognizes that his words and behaviour were outrageous: spitting at the police officers from the back seat; telling Sergeant Brar that his wife was sucking another man’s **** and that Sergeant Brar sucked ****; telling Sergeant Brar he was an idiot; saying his father was a millionaire; that he had lots of money, had a great lawyer and would get out of this; that Sergeant Brar would not get a promotion because he would file a complaint; telling the policemen they were losers; and lying about Sergeant Brar stealing money from him to deflect blame and effect retribution for the arrest. When confronted with whether or not he made these statements and behaved in this shameful manner, Mr. Terrigno stated: “I may have.” Then he tried to justify it by saying that it only happened “after” he was arrested, although he later admitted that he “was doing things that were completely inappropriate.” He should be commended for this recognition and for his apology during his testimony for saying those “inappropriate” things.

[35] Ms. Riopel blew a “Fail” on the Roadside Screening Device. She initially said she had been to a “couple of pubs,” but later changed this to name the Metropolitan Grill, the Bungalow, the Mercury and the Roadhouse. She was very lucky to escape charges for impaired operation of a motor vehicle and operating a motor vehicle while her blood/alcohol level was over .08. She did not remember how much she had to drink that evening and did not remember the accused drinking at all, although he clearly was. Given the “Fail” reading on the roadside screening device, as well as her admission she had been consuming alcohol that evening, I find her memory and capacity to observe were impaired by alcohol. I find her recollection of events was also compromised by repeatedly reviewing the events with the accused. She was mistaken, or misled by the accused’s influence and persuasion, on many issues, but most particularly with respect to Mr. Terrigno’s confrontational and obstructive behaviour with Sergeant Brar.

[36] When asked if she discussed these events with Mr. Terrigno, Ms. Riopel replied: “I certainly did!” In fact, they compared notes and discussed this incident in detail. They also discussed it together in the lawyer’s office within days of the trial. She told Mr. Terrigno what she would say at trial. They are very good friends – like family – according to Ms. Riopel. They have been very close for thirteen years. At one point she and Mr. Terrigno dated. He came to her defence on the night in question - he gave her a breath mint to assist in masking her impairment and he tried to distract and dissuade the police from further investigation.

[37] What was particularly peculiar about their testimony was the specific point both she and Mr. Terrigno made as to why he was intervening with a police investigation in the first place. Both of them used almost exactly the same words to describe how she gets ‘emotional’ and that he was coming out to help her ‘calm down’. The impression left with this trier of fact was that this particular testimony was rehearsed beforehand between the two of them, and not that it was the truth.

[38] I find as a fact that both of their testimonies were contrived. Their close and long-standing relationship their respective impairment from alcohol consumption, as well as their dialogue and comparison of information has tainted their independent recollection of these events. Mr. Terrigno was trying to help Ms. Riopel on the night in question; now I believe, she is trying to help him. When she stated Mr. Terrigno did not impede Sergeant Brar’s passage, I find she is either lying or has been so influenced by discussing the event with Mr. Terrigno combined with her impairment by alcohol on the night in question, that she is mistaken in her recollection or was not in fact paying attention to what was transpiring given her own impairment and worry about her own impending arrest.

[39] One thing they did not rehearse, however, was the obscure issue of whether or not Mr. Terrigno expected her to deliver his telephone to him that night. She was absolutely certain that she was quite clear in telling him she would be bringing his cell phone by right away (i.e. shortly after 3 a.m. when he called her), while he maintained that he did not expect her to arrive at all that night and was surprised to be awoken from sleep by her attending at his door. He stated this was an hour and a half after speaking with her. Clearly, one of them was mistaken as to the timing.

[40] Another thing Mr. Terrigno did not expect was that Sergeant Brar noted Mr. Terrigno’s instructions to Ms. Riopel with respect to a woman in his house: “Get that ***** out of my house.” At trial, Mr. Terrigno led this Court to believe that it was only his friend, Mr. Syed, who was staying over with him at his house and that all had been calm, with him fast asleep. Clearly that was not actually the case. If he truly was asleep just before Ms. Riopel arrived, his statement about evicting the “*****” in his house seems oddly inappropriate.


CONCLUSION

[41] I find the Crown has proven the charge of obstruction against Mr. Terrigno beyond a reasonable doubt. He is found guilty as charged.



Dated at the City of Calgary, in the Province of Alberta, this 20th day of August, 2008.


Heard on the 12th day of March and the 25th day of June, 2008.

Dated at the City of Calgary, Alberta this 20th day of August, 2008.

[Asher]

Who is Michael Terrigno?

The owner of the restaurant is Maurizio Terrigno...that appears to be his legal name. He's listed in the phone book at living at 1404 Memorial Dr NW, which is different than the home address given in that quote also.

[Asher]

That may be the same guy, which wouldn't surprise me given that he's Italian.

[notyoueither]

Michael is the younger brother of Maurizio. He is also involved with running the family business.

http://www.osteria.ca/mike.htm

Just like his brother and father, Mike began working in the restaurant business at an early age. Starting as a busboy at Renato's and then working his way to becoming a waiter at Osteria, Mike enjoyed working within the restaurant and helping his family develop a special business. As the restaurant was successfully operated by his father, mother, and brother, Mike pursued his scholarly interest and began studying at the University of Calgary where he completed a bachelor degree. During this time, he was awarded a scholarship to study at the University of Florence where he learned about his Italian heritage. After gaining experience abroad, Mike pursued his interest in law and business. Completing an MBA at the University of Western and a law degree at the University of Ottawa, he now contributes to the restaurant in his own way, ensuring that Osteria's long-standing reputation of providing superb cuisine and exceptional service, is perserved

I'm sure he has some effect on the service. Maybe he is responsible for billing, contributing to the restaurant with sales that do not require any inventory. Fabrication seems to be something that could be called 'his own way.'

[notyoueither]

Pretty classy joint.

Run by criminals. Padding bills. Bad-mouthing clientelle in the media. Releasing video camera footage of a private party...

Unfortunately not smart enough to keep track of their own lies though.

Very respected members of the community in Calgary...