Bruce S. Miller

The Licensee brought a motion to reopen a hearing regarding the suspension of its liquor licence to introduce fresh evidence concerning the conduct and credibility of an AGCO Inspector.

The Board applied the two-part test from Sagaz, finding that the proposed evidence regarding the Inspector's unrelated conduct would not have been admitted, would not have changed the outcome of the hearing, and could have been obtained with due diligence prior to the original hearing.

The motion to reopen was dismissed.

The Licensee brought a post-hearing motion for disclosure, seeking materials it claimed would discredit the testimony of two AGCO inspectors who testified at the original hearing regarding a liquor licence suspension.

The Licensee argued that the inspectors were dishonest and had engaged in misconduct, and that this evidence would have changed the Board's decision.

The Board dismissed the motion, finding that the requested materials were not relevant and did not meet the test for disclosure under Stinchcombe and McNeil.

The Board noted that the Licensee's own witness had corroborated the inspectors' evidence, and the Licensee had the opportunity to challenge the inspectors' credibility during cross-examination but failed to do so.

Sushi District Inc. applied for an additional outdoor area liquor licence for its restaurant.

The application was opposed by a neighbouring property owner who raised concerns primarily about garbage disposal and the potential for the restaurant to become a nightclub.

The Board found that the objector's concerns were not supported by direct evidence and that the applicant had taken appropriate steps to manage its garbage.

The Board concluded that granting the licence was in the public interest and approved the application without the conditions proposed by the objector.

The applicant's request for costs was denied as the Board lacked the jurisdiction to award them.

The Registrar of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario issued a Notice of Proposal to revoke the licensee's liquor licence for breaches of the Liquor Licence Act.

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

The Board found that the licensee breached sections 6(2)(a) and 6(2)(d) of the Act.

Accepting the joint submission, the Board ordered the licensee to make monthly payments of $1,500 to the Ministry of Revenue until its arrears are paid in full, failing which an expedited hearing may be convened.

The Registrar issued Notices of Proposal to suspend the liquor licence of the respondent establishment for alleged violations of the regulations under the Liquor Licence Act.

At the hearing, the Registrar withdrew certain allegations, and the licensee admitted to breaching sections 52 and 53 of O. Reg. 719/90.

The Board accepted the joint submission and ordered that a warning be issued to the licensee.

The Board previously ordered a six-day suspension of the licensee's liquor licence for violations of the Liquor Licence Act and its regulations.

The suspension was stayed pending the licensee's appeal to the Divisional Court.

Following the dismissal of the appeal, the licensee proposed new suspension dates.

The Board accepted the proposed dates and issued an amended order suspending the licence for six consecutive days in August 2010.

The Board previously found that the Licensee, 1647874 Ontario Inc. operating as Corner Pocket, violated subsection 45(1) of Ontario Regulation 719/90 and ordered a five-day suspension of its liquor licence.

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

The Board ordered the five-day suspension to commence on July 19, 2010, and continue until July 24, 2010.

The licensee applied to remove a condition on its liquor licence that required a licensed security officer to be on duty at all times.

The condition had been imposed following a previous hearing regarding illegal drug activity on the premises.

The licensee argued that there had been a change in circumstances, including the installation of additional security cameras, increased monitoring, staff training, and the provision of a security guard by a third party for the last four hours of operation.

The tribunal found that these measures, along with the financial burden of the original condition, constituted a change in circumstances.

The tribunal approved the removal of the original condition and ordered the addition of modified conditions requiring a security guard during evening hours and the maintenance of the enhanced security measures.

The Registrar of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario sought to suspend the liquor licence of the corporate licensee for permitting drunkenness, contrary to subsection 45(1) of Ontario Regulation 719/90.

Following a previous finding that the licensee committed the violation, the Board received written submissions to determine the appropriate sanction.

The Registrar argued for a seven-day suspension, noting a prior infraction and the high level of intoxication of the patron.

The licensee argued that police harassment was an issue and that staff training was ongoing.

The Board found a five-day suspension appropriate for specific and general deterrence, emphasizing the seriousness of the patron's intoxication and the licensee's prior record.

The Registrar issued a Notice of Proposal to revoke the licensee's liquor licence due to unpaid sales tax revenues.

The licensee owed the Ministry of Revenue over $68,000 and had failed to comply with a Memorandum of Understanding to repay the debt.

The Board found that the licensee knowingly used funds collected in trust and could not reasonably be expected to be financially responsible or operate with integrity and honesty.

The liquor licence was revoked.

The Registrar issued a Notice of Proposed Order to revoke the Registrant's registration as a lottery retailer after one of the partners pled guilty twice within four months to possession of property obtained by crime (pirated DVDs) at the retail location.

The Board found that the repetitive and recent criminal conduct provided reasonable grounds to believe the Registrant would not act as a gaming supplier in accordance with the law, honesty, and integrity.

The Board revoked the registration, noting that while the other partner had no such concerns, the partnership entity could not be severed in this proceeding.

The Registrar of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario issued a Notice of Proposal to suspend the liquor licence of Kool Holdings Inc., operating as This is London.

The parties submitted an Agreed Statement of Facts admitting that the licensee permitted drunkenness and failed to facilitate police investigations.

The Board accepted the joint submission and ordered a 14-day suspension of the liquor licence.

Following a finding that the licensee violated subsection 45(1) of Ontario Regulation 719/90, the Board previously ordered a three-day suspension of the liquor licence for ZU BAR.

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

The Board ordered the three-day suspension to commence on June 23, 2010.

The Licensee appealed an Order of Monetary Penalty issued by the Registrar of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario for allegedly permitting an intoxicated patron on the premises.

The Registrar relied on the testimony of a single patron who claimed to have witnessed an intoxicated male and reported him to staff.

The Board found the witness's evidence lacked credibility due to her admitted intoxication, involvement in a physical altercation, and animosity toward the Licensee.

Without corroborating evidence, the Board dismissed the alleged violation and set aside the $1,800 monetary penalty.

The Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming issued Notices of Proposal to suspend the liquor licences of two numbered companies operating as Level Night Club, Mansion, and The Suite Night Club in Toronto.

The allegations included permitting drunkenness, permitting the use of controlled substances (marijuana), permitting minors to consume liquor, exceeding capacity, and permitting the removal of liquor.

The licensees and the Registrar submitted Agreed Statements of Fact and Joint Submissions Regarding Disposition.

The Board accepted the joint submissions, finding violations of the Liquor Licence Act and its regulations.

The Board ordered a 21-day suspension of both liquor licences, to be served concurrently.

The Registrar of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario issued a Notice of Proposal to suspend the liquor licence of the corporate licensee for allegedly permitting drunkenness on its premises.

Police officers observed a patron leave the establishment, stumble, and fall face-first onto the roadway, exhibiting severe signs of intoxication.

The licensee argued the patron had a club foot and was not intoxicated while inside.

The Board preferred the evidence of the police officers, finding the patron was intoxicated and that the licensee knew or ought to have known of his condition given he had been drinking at the bar for several hours.

The Board found the licensee violated subsection 45(1) of Ontario Regulation 719/90.

Following a finding that the Licensee violated subsection 45(1) of Ontario Regulation 719/90 by permitting drunkenness, the Board determined the appropriate sanction.

The Registrar sought a 10 to 14-day suspension, citing a prior withdrawn charge and lax security.

The Licensee requested a warning, emphasizing it was a first offence and highlighting its security procedures.

The Board ordered a three-day suspension, treating the violation as a first contravention with no aggravating factors, but urged the Licensee to re-examine its security measures.

Following a hearing, the Board previously found that the Licensee violated section 29 of Ontario Regulation 719/90 and ordered a 12-day suspension of its liquor licence.

The Board requested the Licensee to propose suspension dates.

The Licensee proposed dates that were acceptable to the Board.

The Board ordered the 12-day suspension to commence on April 30, 2010.

The Registrar issued a Notice of Proposal to refuse an application for a liquor sales licence by the applicants for their restaurant.

The matter was resolved when the Registrar withdrew the objections upon the applicants agreeing to specific conditions, including restricting one applicant's role to the kitchen and prohibiting his involvement in liquor sales or management.

The Board approved the application subject to the agreed conditions.

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

The Licensee failed to attend the hearing, and the matter proceeded ex parte.

Evidence established that the Licensee had not made retail sales tax payments since 2007 and was in arrears of over $67,000.

The Board found that the Licensee could not reasonably be expected to be financially responsible in the conduct of its business and that there were reasonable grounds to believe the business would not be conducted in accordance with the law and with integrity and honesty.

The liquor licence was revoked.