Joan Lougheed

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The liquor licence was revoked.

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 Board previously found that the Licensee violated subsection 45(1) of Ontario Regulation 719/90 and ordered a 14-day suspension of its liquor licence.

The Licensee proposed acceptable suspension dates.

The Board ordered the 14-day suspension to commence on March 1, 2010.

The Registrar of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario ordered an interim suspension of the licensee's liquor licence following incidents of gun violence at the premises.

A hearing was held to determine whether the suspension should remain in place.

The Board reviewed the licensee's proposed security assessment and found it insufficient to ensure public safety, noting the lack of an organized response or detailed evacuation plan.

The Board ordered that the interim suspension remain in effect until specific security conditions, including physical searches, metal detectors, and staff training, are implemented to the satisfaction of the Registrar.

The Licensee admitted to violating section 43 of Ontario Regulation 719/90 by permitting overcrowding on its rooftop patio.

The Registrar sought a 25 to 30-day suspension, noting a prior 14-day suspension for similar infractions.

The Licensee argued for a minimal sanction, citing the unique personal circumstances of the security guard who abandoned his post and the immediate corrective actions taken, including terminating the responsible employees.

The Board found that while the Licensee took swift corrective action, there were systemic communication and security gaps.

The Board ordered an 18-day suspension of the liquor licence.

The Registrar of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario sought a 10 to 14-day suspension of the licensee's liquor licence following findings that the licensee sold liquor outside prescribed hours and failed to remove signs of service.

The licensee argued for a maximum 5-day suspension or a temporary condition limiting hours of sale.

The Board considered the serious nature of the violations, the licensee's presence during the infractions, and two prior 7-day suspensions for different infractions.

Applying the principle of progressive discipline, the Board ordered an 8-day suspension of the liquor licence.

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.

Following a finding that the licensee violated subsection 31(1)(c) of Ontario Regulation 719/90 under the Liquor Licence Act, the Board received written submissions on sanction.

Both the Registrar and the licensee agreed that the 24 days served during the interim suspension was sufficient disciplinary action.

The Board ordered a 24-day suspension, which was comprised of the time already served during the interim suspension, and maintained the previously imposed conditions on the licence.

Following a finding that the licensee violated subsection 45(1) of Ontario Regulation 719/90 by permitting drunkenness in respect of one patron, the Board considered the appropriate sanction.

The Registrar sought a 30-day suspension, citing the licensee's prior disciplinary history, while the licensee proposed a warning.

The Board found that a warning was insufficient given the licensee's recent history of similar violations, but a 30-day suspension was too harsh as only one of the two alleged violations was proven.

The Board ordered a 14-day suspension of the liquor licence.

The applicant applied to the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario to licence additional indoor and outdoor areas for its establishment.

The applicant withdrew the request for indoor seats and proceeded with the request for 10 outdoor seats.

Although written objections were received regarding noise and parking, the objectors did not attend the hearing.

The Board proceeded ex parte and approved the application for the additional outdoor seats, noting that the municipality had already reviewed and supported the patio application.

The Registrar of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario proposed to revoke the licensee's liquor licence on the basis that the licensee failed to surrender it after ceasing to operate the business, contrary to section 56 of O. Reg. 719/90.

The licensee did not attend the hearing despite being served with notice.

The Board proceeded ex parte and found that the licensee was no longer in control of the premises, which had been leased to another party.

The Board ordered the liquor licence revoked.

The Registrar of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario issued a Notice of Proposal to suspend the respondent's liquor licence, alleging that the licensee permitted disorderly conduct and obstructed an inspection.

A patron claimed he was severely assaulted by other patrons in the establishment's karaoke room and parking lot.

Police found traces of blood in a different room using Luminol, but no visible blood or signs of a struggle.

The Board found the patron's testimony contradictory and lacked corroboration.

The Board concluded there was insufficient evidence that an assault occurred inside the premises or that the licensee cleaned up evidence to obstruct police.

The allegations were dismissed.

The Registrar issued a Notice of Proposal to refuse the corporate applicant's application to transfer a liquor licence for a karaoke bar.

Police and AGCO inspectors observed multiple infractions on two dates, including patrons consuming alcohol after hours, signs of service not being cleared, a patron exhibiting signs of drunkenness, and unlit fire exit signs.

The applicant's principal admitted to a lack of knowledge of the Liquor Licence Act and produced a staff handbook containing significant errors regarding liquor laws.

The Board found that the applicant violated the Act and regulations, and that the applicant's conduct and lack of knowledge afforded reasonable grounds for belief that the business would not be carried on in accordance with the law.

The application to transfer the licence was refused.

Following a hearing where the Board found the licensee breached the Liquor Licence Act and ordered a 5-day suspension, the licensee proposed suspension dates.

The Board found the proposed dates acceptable and ordered the 5-day suspension to commence on January 3, 2010.

The Registrar of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario issued a Notice of Proposal to suspend a liquor licence based on allegations of serving liquor outside prescribed hours, failing to remove signs of service, and obstructing an inspection.

AGCO inspectors observed a patron with a glass of beer at the bar at 3:34 AM.

The Board found that the licensee violated the regulations regarding hours of service and removal of signs of service, preferring the clear and consistent evidence of the inspectors over the licensee's witnesses.

However, the Board dismissed the allegations of obstructing the inspection, finding insufficient evidence that the licensee was involved in pouring out the beer or that the delay in unlocking the door was unreasonable.

The Board previously found that the Licensee violated subsection 45(2) of the Liquor Licence Act and ordered a five-day suspension of its liquor licence.

After the Licensee proposed suspension dates that were unacceptable to the Board, the Board issued this order setting the five-day suspension to commence on January 4, 2010, and conclude on January 9, 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 applicant applied for a liquor licence for a nightclub in Niagara Falls.

Resident objectors initially opposed the application but withdrew their objections after the parties agreed to a set of conditions.

The Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario approved the application subject to the agreed-upon conditions, which included requirements for security personnel, noise control, lighting, and CCTV cameras.

The Registrar issued a Notice of Proposal to suspend the corporate licensee's liquor licence for serving minors and failing to properly check identification.

The licensee admitted to the breaches but disputed the proposed suspension length.

The Board considered the licensee's admission, apologies, and steps taken to improve compliance, but emphasized the seriousness of the infractions.

The Board ordered a 5-day suspension of the liquor licence.

The Registrar of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario issued a Notice of Proposal to suspend the liquor licence of Rockwood Nightclub Inc. for allegedly permitting drunkenness on its premises, contrary to subsection 45(1) of Ontario Regulation 719/90.

Following an inspection, two patrons were observed exhibiting signs of intoxication.

The Board found that the licensee did not permit drunkenness with respect to the first patron, as security staff were actively escorting her out when observed.

However, the Board found a violation with respect to the second patron, who was highly intoxicated and unassisted by staff for an extended period.

The Board concluded the licensee knew or ought to have known of the second patron's drunkenness.