Geoff Pollock

The applicant appealed a Notice of Proposal to refuse the transfer of a liquor licence.

The Registrar argued the applicant made false statements on the application by failing to disclose past criminal charges and Highway Traffic Act convictions, and that his past conduct, including a recent conviction for drug trafficking, afforded reasonable grounds to believe he would not carry on business with honesty and integrity.

The Tribunal found the applicant did not knowingly make false statements, as he acted in good faith and misunderstood the disclosure requirements.

However, the Tribunal upheld the refusal to transfer the licence, finding that the applicant's recent serious criminal conviction and ongoing parole status demonstrated a sufficient nexus to his ability to carry on business in accordance with the law.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Proposal to revoke his liquor licence.

The Registrar issued the notice after multiple unannounced inspections revealed the appellant repeatedly violated the conditions of his licence by failing to provide video surveillance footage and allowing a prohibited person to be present and work at the premises.

Despite an Agreed Order of Monetary Penalty and an education session, the violations continued.

The Tribunal found reasonable grounds to believe the appellant would not carry on business in accordance with the law and with integrity and honesty.

The appeal was dismissed, and the Registrar was directed to carry out the revocation.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her motor vehicle under section 55.1 of the Highway Traffic Act, arguing that the impoundment would result in exceptional hardship.

The vehicle was impounded after police discovered it being driven by an individual whose licence was suspended for a prescribed criminal conviction.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant had reasonable, albeit inconvenient, alternatives to the impounded vehicle, such as public transit, Uber, and her mother's vehicle.

As the appellant failed to demonstrate a lack of reasonable alternatives, the appeal was dismissed and the impoundment was confirmed.

The appellant applied to extend its existing liquor sales licence to include an outdoor patio.

Several local residents objected, raising concerns about alcohol policy, proximity to a school, intoxicated individuals, prior behaviour of the appellant, and noise.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the objectors failed to establish that extending the licence was contrary to the public interest.

The Tribunal ordered the Registrar to issue the licence without the conditions requested by the objectors, finding them unenforceable or inconsistent with other local establishments.

The Registrar issued a Notice of Proposal to revoke the registrations of a motor vehicle dealership and its two directors/salespersons.

The Appellants admitted to multiple instances of failing to disclose significant previous collision damage to consumers and falsifying bills of sale after the fact.

They had previously pled guilty to provincial offences related to this conduct.

The Tribunal found that their past conduct afforded reasonable grounds for belief that they would not carry on business in accordance with the law and with integrity and honesty.

The Tribunal declined to order registration with conditions, noting the Appellants' failure to take responsibility and their attempts to minimize their conduct.

The Registrar was directed to carry out the proposal to revoke the registrations.

The Appellant appealed the revocation of her licence to operate a retirement home by the Registrar of the Retirement Homes Regulatory Authority.

The Tribunal found that the Appellant failed to operate the home in a responsible manner, citing numerous deficiencies including improper medication administration, inadequate infection control, and severe neglect of residents' basic hygiene and dignity.

The Tribunal also found the Appellant lacked honesty and integrity, and that her COVID-19 policies and actions were prejudicial to the health and safety of the residents.

The appeal was dismissed, the licence revocation was confirmed, and costs were awarded to the Respondent due to the Appellant's unreasonable conduct during the hearing.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her motor vehicle under section 55.1 of the Highway Traffic Act, arguing that the impoundment would result in exceptional hardship.

The vehicle was impounded after being driven by an individual whose licence was suspended.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant had reasonable alternatives to the impounded vehicle, such as ordering groceries online and relying on others for transportation, and therefore could not establish exceptional hardship.

An added party brought a motion requesting the adjudicator recuse himself from hearing an appeal regarding a liquor licence application.

The motion was based on the adjudicator's membership on the Board of Governors of a university that opposed the application.

The adjudicator granted the motion, finding that an informed person would conclude his concurrent roles created a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The appellant applied for a liquor licence for its convenience store.

The Registrar issued a Notice of Proposal to Review the Application after receiving objections from local residents.

The sole objector who attended the hearing argued against the licence on public policy grounds, citing risks of drinking and driving and underage drinking.

The Tribunal found that the objector failed to establish that granting the licence was not in the public interest, noting the appellant's robust age verification policies and lack of prior infractions.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to issue the licence without conditions.

The appellant applied for a liquor licence for its convenience store.

The Registrar issued a Notice of Proposal to review the application after receiving objections from residents and the City of Hamilton.

The appellant appealed to the Licence Appeal Tribunal.

The added parties opposed the licence on public policy grounds and requested conditions if granted.

The Tribunal found that the objectors failed to establish that granting the licence was not in the public interest, noting the appellant's robust age verification program and lack of prior infractions.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to issue the licence without conditions.

The applicant, 7-Eleven Canada Inc., applied for a liquor licence for its convenience store in Hamilton.

The Registrar issued a Notice of Proposal to Review the application after receiving objections from local residents and the City of Hamilton.

The added parties argued that granting the licence was not in the public interest due to general policy concerns about alcohol in convenience stores and specific issues with loitering, garbage, and petty crime at the premises.

The Tribunal found that the objectors failed to establish that the licence was not in the public interest, noting the applicant's robust age verification program and recent steps taken to address neighbourhood concerns.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to issue the licence subject to conditions, including a 'Good Neighbour' sign, a contact sign for complaints, and exterior security cameras.

The applicant appealed a Notice of Proposal to Review an Application for a Liquor Licence for its convenience store in Brampton.

The City of Brampton opposed the licence, arguing it was not in the public interest having regard to the needs and wishes of the residents.

The Tribunal found that the City failed to provide direct evidence regarding the needs and wishes of the residents or the impact on the immediate community.

The Tribunal ordered the Registrar to issue the licence without conditions, noting that the applicant had sufficient policies and procedures in place to responsibly handle the sale of alcohol.

The appellant applied for a liquor licence for its convenience store.

The City of Toronto objected on general public policy grounds regarding the harms of alcohol, calling a city councillor to testify.

The Tribunal found that the objector failed to establish that issuing the licence for this specific location was not in the public interest, as the evidence focused on general alcohol policy rather than the specific premises.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to issue the licence without the conditions requested by the City.