Bruce Miller

The Registrar of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario issued a Notice of Proposal to revoke the liquor licence of Jet Fox Bar & Grill after the licensee allowed an individual, who was subsequently charged with sexually assaulting a minor after providing her with alcohol, to manage the premises.

The parties presented an Agreed Statement of Facts and a Joint Submission on Disposition.

The Board accepted the joint submission, finding a breach of section 6(2)(d) of the Liquor Licence Act.

The Board ordered a 17-day suspension of the liquor licence and imposed several conditions, including prohibiting the accused individual from having any involvement in or attending the licensed premises.

The Registrar of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario sought a 31-day suspension of the licensee's liquor licence following a finding that the licensee violated subsection 45(1) of the Liquor Licence Act by failing to facilitate a police inspection.

The licensee argued for a 3-day suspension, citing language barriers and the financial impact on employees.

The Board determined that a 7-day suspension was appropriate for specific and general deterrence, noting the licensee's lack of policies to promote compliance but acknowledging this was a first offence.

The Registrar of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario issued a Notice of Proposal to suspend the licensee's liquor licence for alleged violations of subsections 45(1) and 45(2) of the Liquor Licence Act.

The allegations arose from an incident where police, investigating an assault, were initially denied entry to the premises and later faced delays and refusal of entry when they returned.

The Board found that the licensee contravened subsection 45(1) by obstructing police during their second attempt to enter the premises.

However, the Board dismissed the allegation under subsection 45(2) regarding the failure to facilitate an inspection, finding insufficient evidence that the licensee deliberately withheld surveillance tapes.

Submissions on penalty were invited.

The Registrar issued a Notice of Proposal to revoke the corporate Licensee's liquor licence.

During the hearing, it became evident that the Licensee had not received material disclosure.

The parties agreed to adjourn the hearing to allow the Licensee to review the disclosure.

The parties also agreed to lift an interim suspension order retroactively, subject to the addition of several conditions to the licence, including age restrictions for staff and identification checks for patrons.

The Board ordered the adjournment and lifted the interim suspension order on consent with the proposed conditions.

The applicant applied for a liquor licence for a family restaurant.

The Registrar issued a Notice of Proposal to review the application due to community objections.

At the hearing, the applicant testified about the nature of the business, while none of the objectors appeared to provide evidence.

The Board found no evidence that granting the application would be contrary to the public interest and approved the liquor licence.

The Board previously found that the licensee breached the Liquor Licence Act and its regulations, and ordered a 15-day suspension of her liquor licence.

The licensee proposed acceptable suspension dates.

The Board ordered the 15-day suspension to commence on May 24, 2011.

The Registrar of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario sought to suspend a liquor licence following an incident where a patron left the establishment and was subsequently arrested for impaired driving with a blood alcohol concentration nearly three times the legal limit.

The Licensee admitted to serving liquor outside prescribed hours.

The Board found insufficient evidence that the patron appeared intoxicated when initially served, dismissing the allegation under section 29 of the Liquor Licence Act.

However, the Board found the Licensee breached subsection 45(1) of O.Reg 719/90 by permitting drunkenness on the premises, as the patron consumed a large quantity of alcohol over two hours without any staff monitoring or intervention, and would have shown obvious signs of intoxication well before leaving.

The Registrar issued a Notice of Proposal to revoke the Licensee's liquor licence on the basis of financial irresponsibility, specifically citing significant Retail Sales Tax (RST) arrears owed to the Ministry of Revenue.

The Licensee presented evidence of a business turnaround plan, including reduced operating hours, a rent waiver from the landlord, and substantial payments made towards the arrears since the initial hearing date.

The Board found that the Licensee had demonstrated a commitment to repaying the debt and could reasonably be expected to be financially responsible in the conduct of the business.

The allegation was dismissed.

The Registrar of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario issued Notices of Proposal to suspend and revoke the liquor licence of the respondent licensee for multiple instances of overcrowding, permitting a drunken patron, and failing to file a safety and security plan.

The parties submitted an Agreed Statement of Facts and a Joint Submission on Disposition.

The Board accepted the joint submission, finding the licensee breached the regulations, and ordered a 45-day suspension of the liquor licence.

Following a previous decision finding the Licensee in violation of the Liquor Licence Act regulations and ordering an 8-day suspension, the Board accepted the Licensee's proposed suspension dates.

The Board ordered the liquor licence suspended for eight consecutive days commencing February 16, 2010.

The Registrar requested an adjournment of the hearing due to the unforeseen absence of its scheduled representative.

The self-represented licensee objected, noting the inconvenience to his small business.

The Board granted the adjournment due to the unusual circumstances, but ordered that the new date be peremptory on the Registrar.

The Registrar issued a Notice of Proposal to revoke the licensee's liquor licence due to approximately $20,000 in unpaid retail sales tax.

At the hearing, the parties presented an Agreed Statement of Facts and a Joint Submission on Disposition.

The Board accepted the joint submission, finding that the licensee breached a condition of its licence.

The Board ordered that conditions be attached to the licence requiring the licensee to make all payments to the Ministry of Revenue and to surrender the liquor licence by January 10, 2010.

The Registrar of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario issued a Notice of Proposal to suspend the respondent's liquor licence for allegedly failing to clear evidence of liquor by 2:45 a.m., contrary to section 29 of O.Reg. 719/90.

During an inspection at 2:56 a.m., an inspector observed an individual drinking from a beer bottle at the bar.

The Board rejected the licensee's arguments that there was insufficient proof of consumption or that the liquid was liquor.

The Board found that the licensee violated the regulation and requested written submissions on penalty.

The Board previously found that the Licensee, Sharks Club & Grill Inc., violated several provisions of Ontario Regulation 719/90 under the Liquor Licence Act and ordered a six-day suspension of its liquor licence.

The Licensee proposed suspension dates which were acceptable to the Board.

The Board ordered the six-day suspension to commence on January 4, 2010, and continue until January 10, 2010.

The applicant applied for a liquor licence for the Toronto Motorsports Park.

Two local residents submitted written objections raising concerns about noise and vehicle control.

The objectors did not attend the hearing.

The Board noted that noise and vehicle control are outside the jurisdiction of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario and are matters for local police and municipal by-laws.

The Board approved the application subject to statutory conditions and municipal regulations.

The licensee requested an amendment to the dates of a 30-day liquor licence suspension previously ordered by the Board.

The Registrar did not oppose the request.

The Board granted the request and amended the suspension dates to commence on November 1, 2009, and end on December 1, 2009.

Following a finding that the licensee violated regulations under the Liquor Licence Act by permitting drunkenness and committing minor regulatory infractions, a hearing was held to determine the appropriate sanction.

The Registrar sought a 7 to 10 day suspension, while the licensee argued for 2 to 4 days, citing a generally good compliance record and the economic impact on staff.

The Board ordered a 6-day suspension, noting the seriousness of permitting drunkenness and the licensee's prior disciplinary record.

The Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario held a hearing regarding a Notice of Proposal to suspend the respondent's liquor licence for permitting drunkenness on the premises.

The Board previously found that the licensee breached the regulation by allowing two intoxicated patrons to remain on the premises, who were subsequently involved in a serious motor vehicle accident.

After considering aggravating factors, including the licensee's prior record of suspensions, and mitigating factors regarding staff actions, the Board ordered a 30-day suspension of the liquor licence.

The Board previously ordered a 10-day suspension of the licensee's liquor licence for a violation of section 43 of Ontario Regulation 719/90.

The licensee appealed, postponing the suspension, but subsequently abandoned the appeal and proposed new suspension dates acceptable to the Board.

The Board ordered the 10-day suspension to be served from November 2, 2009, to November 12, 2009.

The Registrar of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario issued a Notice of Proposal to suspend the liquor licence of Sharks Club & Grill.

Following an inspection, the Licensee admitted to violations involving fruit flies in liquor bottles and adulterated liquor.

The remaining contested issue was whether the Licensee permitted drunkenness on the premises.

The Board found the testimony of the AGCO inspectors, who observed two highly intoxicated patrons, to be more reliable than the Licensee's evidence.

The Board concluded that the Licensee knew or ought to have known the patrons were intoxicated and permitted drunkenness contrary to subsection 45(1) of O.Reg 719/90.