Go Ad Free

You may recall our recent reports regarding Tim Hortons. We exposed the company for lying through its teeth at a recent presser. Tim Hortons implied they were going to go back to hiring Canadian citizens. That would be great news — if only it were true.

That’s because Tim’s is STILL making use of the Temporary Foreign Worker Program! Check out the federal government’s job board. Tim’s currently has about 90 positions available under the Temporary Foreign Worker Program.

Sure, Tim Hortons loves selling its wares to Canadians. As for hiring Canadians? Not so much…

Tim’s was not amused by our coverage. And so it was that Tim’s decided to play hardball. Which is to say, the company was so infuriated that Rebel News was sent a legal letter.

We were informed on June 1 that Rebel News staffers are essentially persona non grata at all Canadian Tim Hortons. I was especially singled out. The Tim’s legal eagle noted I am now BANNED FOR LIFE from going to any Tim Hortons store in Canada!

🚨@EzraLevant: Nationwide Tim Hortons ban won't stop Rebel News from getting answers

Rebel News will continue to report on this story. A legal threat is not an answer, and 'no comment' is not a press strategy that holds up when the public is watching.

On Friday’s episode of The… pic.twitter.com/defnmCv1DG

— Rebel News (@RebelNewsOnline) June 9, 2026

We’re not making this up! Here’s an excerpt from that letter:

“David Menzies, due to past behaviour, is not, for any reason, permitted access to the premises, including parking lots, landscaped areas, and drive-thrus of any Tim Hortons restaurant in Canada, any and all manufacturing and distribution facilities owned or operated by TDL across Canada and the Tim Hortons offices in Montreal, Calgary and Toronto.”

You know, it’s Tim Hortons right to banish anyone from its fine restaurants. And of course we do respect the rights of private property owners.

But we wanted to be crystal clear about the ban so that I would not inadvertently violate it. Thus, I sent the following email to Tim Hortons media relations department:

“Good afternoon, hope you’re doing well. David Menzies with Rebel News here in Toronto.

“As you know I’m banned from all Canadian Tim Hortons, apparently for asking impolite questions.

“Be that as it may, I do respect private property and if RBI no longer wants my patronage, it is your right to demand this ban.

“However, out of an abundance of caution, I want to make certain that I follow the terms and conditions of the ban correctly. Please answer the following questions:

“1. If I’m a passenger in a vehicle that is using a Tim’s drive-thru, is that permissible or would that result in a trespassing charge?

“2. My local Esso has an embedded Tim Hortons franchise. If I go into the shop to pay for gas, will I be charged with trespassing given the Tim’s shares the same interior?

“3. There are numerous Tim Hortons stores located at mall food courts in Canada. If I visit a food court with a Tim’s, will I be arrested for trespassing?

“4. Am I also banned from other RBI-owned and operated restaurant chains such as Firehouse Subs, Popeyes, and Burger King?

“5. There are some Tim Hortons that are twinned with another restaurant, typically Wendy’s. Am I allowed to use the other restaurant or will I be charged with trespassing?

“6. If I am undergoing a medical emergency and the only shop open is a Tim Hortons, will I be charged with trespassing if I enter that shop?

“7. Since you are ‘divorcing’ me, what am I to do with the Tim Hortons merchandise in my possession (i.e., gift cards) that I can no longer use? Will you reimburse me for this merchandise?”

Now folks, here’s where things get surreal. We did hear back from Tim Hortons — not from the media relations department, but rather, their legal counsel. Here was his terse one-line response to my seven questions:

“The trespass notice speaks for itself. Please share this email with your counsel if they wish to contact me directly.

“Regards,

“Jon Domanko, Vice President, Legal, Canada”

Sorry Jon, the trespass notice does NOT speak for itself. Rather, it is open to interpretation. Which is why I asked those seven specific questions.

Secondly, what an unlawyerly response, eh? Lawyers are typically all about putting down the nitty-gritty tangible details in writing. Stating that “the trespass notice speaks for itself” is the opposite of tangible. It’s completely abstract.

Or maybe I'm being set up? Maybe Tim Hortons is purposefully not giving me answers so that I can be arrested should I venture into a food court or an Esso station where a Tim Hortons is located? We wouldn’t put it past these shameless bullies.

Bottom line: the lack of disclosure from Tim’s corporate is more disgraceful than your average Tim Hortons washroom…