A regional Queensland supermarket has been cleared of discrimination after banning two customers who refused to leash their assistance dogs in-store.
The Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT) ruled that the Foodworks outlet in Agnes Water and its manager acted lawfully in enforcing store rules that required the dogs to be on leads. The case, which spanned over three years, could have been avoided entirely, according to the tribunal.
The matter began in April 2020 when the store asked Jamie and Jodey Hope to provide proof that their dogs—Boof, Chevy and Oakey—were certified assistance animals. The Hopes declined and were informed that the dogs must be leashed while inside the shop.
Mr Hope has a history of mental and physical health conditions following his military service as a combat engineer, including an adjustment disorder that requires ongoing support from his assistance dog. Mrs Hope also has several chronic medical issues. The couple argued that their dogs needed to be off-leash in some situations and claimed the store’s actions were discriminatory.
The store’s manager, Michelle Irvine, had previously sought advice from the Assistance Dogs Association, which confirmed that businesses have the right to request verification of assistance animals and enforce reasonable safety protocols. In response, the Hopes began shopping with all three dogs on leads.
By November 2021, the store asked the couple to limit their visits to two dogs at a time due to space constraints and safety concerns. The presence of multiple dogs, along with two people and a trolley, made it difficult for others to move safely through the narrow aisles.
For the next year, the arrangement appeared to work. However, in August 2022, Mrs Hope was seen removing a dog’s lead while inside the store and refused to reattach it when asked, instead threatening to pursue legal action. On two subsequent visits, the couple again entered the store with unleashed dogs and refused to comply with staff requests. In September 2022, the store issued a ban.
The Hopes brought a complaint before QCAT, alleging direct and indirect discrimination by the store and its manager. But the tribunal dismissed the claims, concluding that the ban had nothing to do with the Hopes’ medical conditions or protected status.
According to the findings, the couple’s decision to ignore the leash request was a deliberate act of protest rather than a necessity. Although the tribunal acknowledged that assistance dogs may need to be off-lead in emergencies, it was not convinced that such circumstances applied during the incidents in question.
The judgment noted that the Hopes acted to challenge the authority of the store rather than out of genuine need. Their conduct was viewed as an attempt to assert their interpretation of their rights, not as a matter of urgent medical or safety concern.
Ultimately, the tribunal sided with the store, stating that its actions were justified and based on reasonable workplace health and safety considerations. The tribunal also noted the unfortunate length and complexity of the case, suggesting that it could have been resolved with communication and cooperation rather than formal legal proceedings.
For the latest retailer news and information, check out the IndiHub website or to speak to us about how we can help your business contact us.
