Cafe: MBCo La Boulangerie De Montreal (Yorkville, Toronto)

Details

Name: MBCo La Boulangerie De Montreal
Location: Yorkville
100 Bloor Street West
Toronto, ON M5S 3E7
Date of Dining: July 14, 2013
Website: MBCo
Owner: Montreal Bread Company
Price: $$

Photos

MBCo La Boulangerie De Montreal-071413-Entrance-thumb.jpgMBCo La Boulangerie De Montreal-071413-Roast Duck Sandwich-01-thumb.jpgMBCo La Boulangerie De Montreal-071413-Roast Duck Sandwich-02-thumb.jpgMBCo La Boulangerie De Montreal-071413-Tart-thumb.jpgMBCo La Boulangerie De Montreal-071413-Weak Peta-Left-&-Roast Duck-right-thumb.jpgMBCo La Boulangerie De Montreal-071413-Weak Peta-thumb.jpgMBCo La Boulangerie De Montreal-071413-zExit-thumb.jpg

Description

It’s hard to classify this place. According to their website, it’s a restaurant-bakery and catering concept rolled into one. Despite the menus on their website, the Yorkville location only had a cafe/deli and some non-alcoholic drinks. Seating was limited, thus making it a cafe/deli.

It’s a strange fusion of concepts that is missing an identity.

Initial Impression

From the outside it looked like a nice cafe. A place to grab a sandwich and drink for lunch. The decor had the Montreal vibe, with a white elegant looking setup. Only problem, the place was void of customers when entering the place at noon.

Moreover, prices were on the high side, but it looked like a great place to quickly grab a treat and spoil oneself.

Ordering

Service was poor. It’s noon time, and there were no other customers when entering the place. After a while the cook greeted us.

I asked if the sandwiched could be warmed up, and the answer was yes. Great! Looking at the deli counter, I selected the roast duck sandwich and the chicken pita sandwich. From there the cook informed me that drinks can be order from the end cashier.

Okay, to the end cashier I went. Water was ordered, and I also let the cashier know that the roast duck sandwich and the chicken pita sandwich were ordered. After some hollering between the cashier and cook, it was eventually confirmed. Payment was then made via a chipped credit card. The only receipt was for the credit card, and not the items ordered.

As for the water, an empty glass was handed over with instruction to get water from the pitcher sitting behind me on a counter.

Anyway, according to the receipt, INV#: 000000005 makes me the fifth customer for the day. My friend before me ordered a drink and tart, which would make her the fourth customer.

Well we were the only ones there at noon. A seat was found, and the waiting began. After five-ten minutes, the food was finally ready. This seemed odd as the sandwiched were prepared beforehand and sitting behind the deli counter. All that was required was heating.

Food

The sandwiches were cut in half and presented nicely on some white plates. However, there were issues with the food itself.

Roast Duck Sandwich

Immediately there were issues with roast duck sandwich. With only one bite, it tasted like ham! The sandwich was opened open up to reveal the meat which was reddish in color. It looked like ham, it tasted like ham, and it was bland tasting (except for the excess salt).

This sandwich was brought back to the deli counter, and the cashier tried to help after informing her of the problem. It was compared to the other roast duck sandwiches. The skin was dark red with a golden color, but the meat of the other sandwiches were dark colored while my sandwich was red. No changes would be made.

As a result, the other half of the sandwich was sampled by my friend and she too thought it tasted like ham. Back I went to the deli counter. This time the cashier got the cook who insisted that he prepared it, and they don’t have ham. Since, he prepared it, I inquired how it was cooked and cured to give the red color. The other roast duck sandwiches have a dark meat color to it while this is red. They don’t even look the same. His only response is that it’s duck and nothing would be done.

If I review this as roast duck sandwich, then it was poorly done and overly cured in salt. It’s flat tasting except for the salt. There’s no strong pronounced or gamy taste of duck.

How about reviewing it as a sandwich without knowing the contents? First, the bread was flat and stale. It seems to of either been cooked or warmed up one too many times. Second, the sauce itself was bland and generic. There was nothing special or distinct about this sandwich except for the overly salty meat and high price tag.

Well, that’s a poor review of the roast duck sandwich.

However, the real disappointment was the lack of help from the cook who didn’t seem to care or take pride in his sandwiches.

“Weak Pete” – Whole Wheat Roasted Chicken Pita Sandwich

There was nothing special about this sandwich. The bread was dry and stale while the tomatoes and vegetable were old tasting. Fortunately, the meat was roasted chicken but it was dry as if it had been sitting around for some time and reheated. In the end, the roasted chicken pita sandwich tasted plain and ordinary. It was an average sandwich with an inflated price.

Other

My friend ordered a tart and coffee. No review, but the coffee was quoted as good!

Price

Final total for a roast duck sandwich and roasted chicken pita sandwich was $25.97 (includes 13% tax). Considering the average quality food, it was very pricey and not a treat.

Harsh Review?

Well this looks like a rather harsh review. Am I being biased and unfair? At first I thought so, but I searched for other reviews which had similar issues and more.

  • Service is slow and poor
  • Quality is average
  • Price is too high

However, the more part surprised me. Apparently MBCo at Yorkville is well know for health inspection infractions. At first, I took these reviews lightly but they kept cropping up. As a result, an official source was searched for and found at Dinesafe: MBCo Cafe.

Infractions were plenty and would explain the staleness of the food sampled.

Final Thoughts

Eating there again is not an option. Slow service, poor service, high prices, and mediocre food. There are better options nearby.

The real problem, though, were the repeated health infractions.

MBCo La Boulangerie De Montreal in Yorkville, Toronto is a failed concept with no unique or distinguishing marks unless the health infractions are counted.


Health Infractions:

On July 15, 2013 these were the health reports listed at Dinesafe: MBCo Cafe.

July 2, 2013 – Pass

No infractions were observed under the Food Premises Regulation during an inspection.

June 27, 2013 – Conditional Pass

One or more crucial infractions were observed under the Food Premises Regulation that present an immediate health hazard that cannot be correct during an inspection.

Food Premises Regulation Infractions:

Category Severity Action
Operator fail to provide hand washing supplies Significant Notice to Comply, assess on re-inspection
FAIL TO STORE FOOD ON RACKS OR SHELVES O. REG 562/90 SEC. 23 Significant Corrected During Inspection
Operator fail to provide accurate indicating thermometer(s) Significant Notice to Comply, assess on re-inspection
Operator fail to maintain hazardous food(s) at 4C (40F) or colder. Crucial Notice to Comply, assess on re-inspection

Municipal Code Infractions:

Category Action
Fail to , upon request by any person, produce the food safety inspection report or reports relating to the currently posted food inspection notice for such establishment – Municipal Code Chapter 545 Sec. 5G(5) Notice to Comply, assess on re-inspection
Fail to ensure the presence of the holder of a valid food handler’s certificate – Municipal Code Chapter 545 Sec. G(17)(a) Notice to Comply, assess on re-inspection

February 14, 2013 – Pass

Food Premises Regulation Infractions:

Category Severity Action
Operator fail to properly wash surfaces in rooms Minor Notice to Comply, assess on re-inspection

February 12, 2013 – Conditional Pass

One or more crucial infractions were observed under the Food Premises Regulation that present an immediate health hazard that cannot be correct during an inspection.

Food Premises Regulation Infractions:

Category Severity Action
Food handler fail to wear headgear Minor Notice to Comply, assess on re-inspection
Operator fail to properly wash surfaces in rooms Minor Notice to Comply, assess on re-inspection
Operator fail to maintain hazardous food(s) at 4C (40F) or colder. Crucial Notice to Comply, assess on re-inspection

September 28, 2012 – Pass

No infractions were observed under the Food Premises Regulation during an inspection.

September 24, 2012 – Conditional Pass

One or more crucial infractions were observed under the Food Premises Regulation that present an immediate health hazard that cannot be correct during an inspection.

Food Premises Regulation Infractions:

Category Severity Action
Operator fail to provide separate handwashing sink(s) Significant Notice to Comply, assess on re-inspection
Operator fail to provide adequate pest control Significant Notice to Comply, assess on re-inspection

September 20, 2012 – Conditional Pass

One or more crucial infractions were observed under the Food Premises Regulation that present an immediate health hazard that cannot be correct during an inspection.

Food Premises Regulation Infractions:

Category Severity Action
Operator fail to wash hands when required Crucial Notice to Comply, assess on re-inspection
Operator fail to provide separate handwashing sink(s) Significant Notice to Comply, assess on re-inspection
Operator fail to provide properly equipped mech washer Significant Notice to Comply, assess on re-inspection
Operator fail to provide adequate pest control Significant Notice to Comply, assess on re-inspection

Municipal Code Infractions:

Category Action
Fail to , upon request by any person, produce the food safety inspection report or reports relating to the currently posted food inspection notice for such establishment – Municipal Code Chapter 545 Sec. 5G(5) Notice to Comply, assess on re-inspection
Fail to ensure the presence of the holder of a valid food handler’s certificate – Municipal Code Chapter 545 Sec. G(17)(a) Notice to Comply, assess on re-inspection

August 22, 2012 – Pass

No infractions were observed under the Food Premises Regulation during an inspection.

August 20, 2012 – Conditional Pass

One or more crucial infractions were observed under the Food Premises Regulation that present an immediate health hazard that cannot be correct during an inspection.

Food Premises Regulation Infractions:

Category Severity Action
Operator fail to ensure food is not contaminated/adulterated Crucial Notice to Comply, assess on re-inspection
Operator fail to properly wash large utensils Significant Notice to Comply, assess on re-inspection

Municipal Code Infractions:

Category Action
Fail to ensure the presence of the holder of a valid food handler’s certificate – Municipal Code Chapter 545 Sec. G(17)(a) Notice to Comply, assess on re-inspection

August 16, 2012 – Conditional Pass

One or more crucial infractions were observed under the Food Premises Regulation that present an immediate health hazard that cannot be correct during an inspection.

Food Premises Regulation Infractions:

Category Severity Action
Operator fail to clean washroom fixtures Significant Notice to Comply, assess on re-inspection
Operator fail to wash hands when required Crucial Notice to Comply, assess on re-inspection
FAIL TO PROVIDE SOAP OR DETERGENT IN FOOD PREPARATION AREA O. REG 562/90 SEC. 20(1)(C) Significant Corrected During Inspection
FAIL TO PROVIDE TOWELS IN FOOD PREPARATION AREA O. REG 562/90 SEC. 20(1)(C) Significant Corrected During Inspection
Operator fail to provide headgear Minor Notice to Comply, assess on re-inspection
OPERATOR FAIL TO ENSURE COVER WILL PREVENT CONTAMINATION OR ADULTERATION O. REG 562/90 SEC. 59©(II) Significant Corrected During Inspection
Operator fail to properly wash large utensils Significant Not in Compliance
Operator fail to provide adequate pest control Significant Notice to Comply, assess on re-inspection
Operator fail to maintain hazardous food(s) at 4C (40F) or colder. Crucial Notice to Comply, assess on re-inspection

Municipal Code Infractions:

Category Action
Fail to , upon request by any person, produce the food safety inspection report or reports relating to the currently posted food inspection notice for such establishment – Municipal Code Chapter 545 Sec. 5G(5) Notice to Comply, assess on re-inspection
Fail to ensure the presence of the holder of a valid food handler’s certificate – Municipal Code Chapter 545 Sec. G(17)(a) Notice to Comply, assess on re-inspection

March 6, 2012 – Pass

Food Premises Regulation Infractions:

Category Severity Action
Operator fail to provide headgear Minor Notice to Comply, assess on re-inspection
STORE UTENSILS IN MANNER NOT PREVENTING CONTAMINATION O. REG 562/90 SEC. 81 Significant Corrected During Inspection
Operator fail to properly maintain equipment(NON-FOOD) Minor Notice to Comply, assess on re-inspection

Municipal Code Infractions:

Category Action
Fail to ensure the presence of the holder of a valid food handler’s certificate – Municipal Code Chapter 545 Sec. G(17)(a) Notice to Comply, assess on re-inspection

October 5, 2011 – Pass

No infractions were observed under the Food Premises Regulation during an inspection.

October 4, 2011 – Conditional Pass

One or more crucial infractions were observed under the Food Premises Regulation that present an immediate health hazard that cannot be correct during an inspection.

Food Premises Regulation Infractions:

Category Severity Action
Operator fail to provide hand washing supplies Significant Ticket

Municipal Code Infractions:

Category Action
Fail to post the eating and drinking establishment license adjacent to the food safety inspection notice – Municipal Code Chapter 545 Sec. 5G(4) Notice to Comply, assess on re-inspection
Fail to , upon request by any person, produce the food safety inspection report or reports relating to the currently posted food inspection notice for such establishment – Municipal Code Chapter 545 Sec. 5G(5) Notice to Comply, assess on re-inspection
Fail to produce photo identification card – Municipal Code 545 Sec. 5G(17)(c) Notice to Comply, assess on re-inspection