A coffee enthusiast in St. Andrews complained three times about "burnt" decaffeinated coffee at the local Tim Hortons. Afterward he has been banned for life from that outlet and the one in nearby St. Stephen. Is the costumer always right?

Always fresh, always good! That is a Tim Hortons advertising campaign slogan. Jimmy Craig is not sure about the truth of it. He claims that the man as him - a young paramedic who works over night - needs his decaf. But the decaf he got 3 times in his neighborhood did not like very much. According to him it was like brown, burnt water. So he decided to bring the problem with the consistency of his product to attention of both the store manager and the owner as well.

The owner Edwin Dow contends his staff went the extra mile to satisfy Craig, brewing fresh pots of decaf on request. He said this customer was upsetting his staff and he was tired of his complaints, so he banned him.

It is surprising reaction but the reaction of Mr. Craig is interesting as well: he has contacted a lawyer to try to get the ban overturned. He obviously wants to visit the place again and be a customer in the restaurant after he had 3 episodes with it. Would you pay for something like this? Why he did not find a different coffee shop if they cannot make good coffee for him? Probably there are not much of coffee shops in the neighborhood. That is why he is brewing his own coffee at home now (is cheaper and surely always fresh). But why he wants this painful story to continue? Sounds like this guy is intent on harming himself, or trying to get into the news, or trying to get some money from the company, or trying to resolve "the coffee problem" for others customers. But how can be sure what they want? However, if he wants some compensation for the ban, he probably could get it.

Miroslava Hospodarova