Mary Ann Spencer

The Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming issued a Notice of Proposal to revoke the appellant's liquor licence due to alleged breaches of the Liquor Licence Act and licence conditions.

The conditions were imposed after an incident involving an individual, Inderjeet Joshi, who was subsequently excluded from the premises.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant breached conditions by allowing Joshi on the premises, failing to install required security cameras, and failing to facilitate an inspection.

The Tribunal requested submissions on the appropriate sanction.

The appellant applied for a liquor sales licence for its premises.

The City of Toronto filed a pro forma objection based on a municipal policy requiring applicants to complete a specific training program and obtain a letter of support from their local MPP, prompting a public interest review by the AGCO.

At the hearing, the City led no evidence to demonstrate that issuing the licence would be contrary to the public interest, acknowledging that the required training program no longer existed and MPPs were instructed not to provide such letters.

The Tribunal found the objector failed to meet its onus and directed the Registrar to approve the application.

The appellants, operators of a licensed establishment, appealed a $2,000 monetary penalty imposed by the Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming for permitting disorderly conduct on the premises.

The incident involved the forceful removal of a patron who had made remarks about an allegedly underage bartender.

The Tribunal found that while the licensees had the right to ask the patron to leave, they escalated the situation by using excessive force, dragging the patron out, and failing to call the police.

The Tribunal concluded that the licensees exercised poor judgment and thereby permitted quarrelsome, violent, or disorderly conduct to occur, confirming the monetary penalty.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of his motor vehicle under section 50.2 of the Highway Traffic Act, arguing that the impoundment would result in exceptional hardship.

The appellant, whose driver's licence was suspended, was caught driving the vehicle.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant had alternatives to using the impounded vehicle, such as rides from co-workers and public transportation.

Furthermore, the regulations preclude considering financial or economic loss by the suspended driver.

The Tribunal confirmed the impoundment.

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

The vehicle had been driven by the principal's brother, whose licence was suspended for an impaired driving conviction.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant had alternatives to the impounded vehicle and that financial cost to release the vehicle could not be considered as exceptional hardship under the regulations.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment was confirmed.

The appellant, operating a licensed establishment, applied to remove two conditions from its liquor licence prohibiting amplified sound causing audible noise to residential buildings after 11 p.m. and prohibiting cover charges.

The appellant argued that a change in its business model from a board game cafe to an evening bar constituted a change in circumstances justifying the removal.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the conditions were originally negotiated for public interest reasons to mitigate noise and social consequences in the community.

The Tribunal held that the appellant failed to demonstrate a change in circumstances supporting the removal of the conditions and that their removal was not in the public interest.

The Registrar's proposal to refuse the application was upheld.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act after she allowed a colleague, whose licence was suspended for impaired driving, to drive it.

She argued she exercised due diligence and that the impoundment caused exceptional hardship.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding she failed to exercise due diligence because she did not ask to see the driver's licence.

The Tribunal also found no exceptional hardship, as the appellant had alternatives available, including public transit, carpooling, and repairing a second vehicle she owned.

The Appellant applied for a liquor sales licence for an outdoor patio at its pub.

Several local residents and a condominium corporation objected, citing concerns about noise, disruptive behaviour, and traffic.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the objectors' concerns regarding disruptive behaviour and traffic were speculative and unsupported by evidence.

Relying on expert acoustical evidence, the Tribunal concluded that the patio noise would likely comply with municipal bylaws and not disturb residents.

The Tribunal approved the application subject to conditions, including an 11 p.m. closing time and a prohibition on outdoor music.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of his motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act.

The vehicle was impounded after the appellant's friend, who was driving, was found to have a suspended licence for a blood alcohol concentration above .05.

The appellant argued he exercised due diligence by asking his friend if he had his licence, though he did not ask to see it.

He also argued exceptional hardship due to a potential job offer.

The Tribunal found the appellant did not exercise due diligence as he failed to ask to see the licence.

The Tribunal also found no exceptional hardship, as the appellant had no firm job offer and had not explored all reasonable alternatives to the vehicle.

The impoundment was confirmed.

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

The vehicle was impounded after the appellant allowed a friend, whose licence was suspended for life due to a Criminal Code conviction, to drive it.

The Tribunal found that the appellant had alternatives to using the impounded vehicle, such as public transit, taxis, and assistance from family members.

As the appellant failed to establish that no alternatives existed, the appeal was dismissed and the impoundment was confirmed.

The appellant's vehicle was impounded under the Highway Traffic Act after being driven by a suspended driver.

The appellant filed a notice of appeal more than two months after the 15-day deadline and brought a motion for an extension of time.

The Tribunal applied the four-part test for extending time and found the appellant failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay.

The Tribunal also noted the appeal had little reasonable chance of success on the merits of exceptional hardship, as the appellant had access to public transit.

The motion for an extension of time was denied and the impoundment was confirmed.

The applicant appealed a Notice of Proposal from the Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming to suspend its liquor licence for 14 days.

In a previous decision, the Tribunal found the applicant breached the Liquor Licence Act by selling liquor to an intoxicated person and permitting drunkenness on the premises.

The Registrar sought a 12 to 13-day suspension based on the applicant's history of non-compliance, while the applicant argued for a 2 to 3-day suspension.

The Tribunal noted the applicant's three previous violations and lack of familiarity with its own alcohol policy.

Considering that one of the original three allegations was dismissed, the Tribunal ordered an 8-day suspension of the applicant's liquor licence.

The applicant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act, arguing that the loss of the vehicle would result in exceptional hardship due to her severe medical conditions and mobility issues.

The vehicle had been impounded after her son was caught driving it while his licence was suspended for a Criminal Code conviction.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the applicant's household had access to a second vehicle and that her brother was able to drive her to medical appointments.

Because alternatives to the impounded vehicle were available, the applicant failed to establish exceptional hardship as required by the legislation.

The applicant appealed the 45-day impoundment of their commercial motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act.

The vehicle was impounded after the applicant's husband was caught driving it while his licence was suspended for an impaired driving conviction.

The applicant argued the vehicle was stolen and that the impoundment would cause exceptional hardship to her biofuel business.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding insufficient evidence that the vehicle was taken without consent and concluding that alternatives to the impounded vehicle were available, negating the claim of exceptional hardship.

The applicant appealed a proposal by the Registrar to refuse his registration as a motor vehicle dealer.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement.

The applicant agreed to withdraw his application for registration as a dealer and accepted terms and conditions for registration as a salesperson.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal issued a consent order incorporating the agreed terms, which included restrictions on dealership management and requirements for full disclosure and further education.

The Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming proposed to suspend the applicant's liquor licence for 14 days.

The applicant appealed to the Licence Appeal Tribunal.

The Tribunal found that the applicant breached section 29 of the Liquor Licence Act by serving an intoxicated patron and subsection 45(1) of Regulation 719 by permitting drunkenness on the premises, based on the credible testimony of two police officers.

However, the Tribunal found no breach of subsection 20(1) of Regulation 719 regarding practices encouraging immoderate consumption.

The Tribunal requested written submissions regarding the appropriate sanction.

The applicant appealed the 45-day impoundment of his motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act, arguing the vehicle was taken without his consent by his son and that the impoundment caused exceptional hardship.

The son, a suspended driver experiencing methadone withdrawal, took the vehicle to drive to a pharmacy.

The Tribunal found that the son took the vehicle without the permission of the applicant or his wife.

Applying the legal definition of 'stolen' which includes temporary deprivation, the Tribunal concluded the vehicle was stolen at the time of impoundment and ordered the Registrar to release the vehicle.

The applicant's vehicle was impounded for 45 days after he was caught driving with a suspended licence.

The applicant filed an appeal 11 days after the statutory deadline and brought a motion for an extension of time.

The applicant failed to attend the teleconference hearing.

The Tribunal denied the motion for an extension of time, finding no reasonable grounds, as the applicant showed a lack of urgency, failed to attend the hearing, and the appeal had little reasonable chance of success on the merits.

The applicant's vehicle was impounded for 45 days after he was caught driving with a suspended licence.

He filed an appeal 15 days after the statutory deadline and brought a motion for an extension of time.

The Tribunal applied the four-part test for granting an extension and found that the applicant lacked a bona fide intention to appeal within the time limit, the delay prejudiced the Registrar, and the appeal lacked merit because financial hardship cannot be considered.

The motion for an extension of time was denied and the impoundment was confirmed.

The applicants appealed an Order of Monetary Penalty issued by the Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming for contraventions of O. Reg. 719/90.

The Tribunal upheld a $1,000 penalty for exceeding the licensed capacity, accepting the inspector's evidence that the premises were overcrowded.

However, the Tribunal set aside a $150 penalty for failing to ensure an employee had server training certification, finding that the employee had not worked beyond the 60-day grace period provided by the regulation.