Earls restaurant will be facing a human rights tribunal after a dad claimed he was discriminated against when his request for a high chair was turned down.

The chain restaurant tried to quash the hearing, but the chair of B.C.'s Human Rights Tribunal, Bernd Walter, dismissed the claim on April 27, allowing for the hearing to move forward.

According to documents from the decision, complainant Phillip Ryan said Earls "declined" to provide a high chair for his one-year-old baby during a visit on February 7, 2015.

When he inquired further, he alleges restaurant staff told him it was company policy not to provide such seating.

He said he visited another Earls later that month, and was told the same thing.

The restaurant argued Ryan was offered a "reasonable accommodation" — a table with booth seating so he could place his baby on his lap, "which families often find more comfortable."

Documents say, the father felt otherwise and thought it would be an unsafe alternative for a one-year-old.

Families welcome

In response to Walter's decision, Earls spokeswoman Cate Simpson maintained the restaurant welcomes "all guests, including families with chidlren."

She said the availability of high chairs varies from location to location based on its primary clientele.

"We do not have a policy that prohibits high chairs," she wrote in an email. "Requests for high chairs at some locations are rare."

Simpson says approximately half of its restaurants have high chairs and a "few more" have booster seats.

She emphasized parents are "always welcome" to bring their own high chairs.

History of complaints

The allegations against Earls for discriminating against parents aren't new.

As far back as 2006, CBC News raised the issue with the chain when families complained about the lack of high chairs at the restaurant.

A spokesperson responded then by saying in urban areas where the restaurants attracts "a great number of professional and business clients," they received "both opinions regarding high chairs."

"Please understand, we are not trying to discriminate against you. Rather, we are trying to maximize our sales opportunities according to the neighbourhood we serve."

According to Walter, this latest decision does not mean Ryan will succeed at the human rights tribunal — only that an evidentiary hearing is indeed warranted.