Well said, SouthLake. It strikes me as inequitable that some disabilities would be recognized and accommodated, and others not. This isn't simply a question of head count--the aide/therapist is required for the child to access the facility.
I think we in Canada and the US need to disabuse ourselves of the opinion that accommodating disabilities is a discretionary consumption decision, because it isn't. It's an equity issue.
The restaurant is a non-issue because food costs are sunk for the therapist. Food is required for the therapist to exist independent of the client relationship, so it's irrelevant to the calculation on a marginal basis.
