LIQUOR LICENCE ACT, R.S.O. 1990

In the Matter of: DANG RESTAURANT

99 Pape Avenue

Toronto, Ontario

M4M 2V7

Licensee: Cuong Ve Dang

Licence Number: 281041

Notice of Proposal: To REVOKE a licence

Dated September 29, 2006

The Proposal alleges that:

(a) Pursuant to section 6(2)(d) of the Liquor Licence Act, the past/present conduct of the applicant (or if a corporation) or its officers or directors, or a shareholder who owns or controls 10% or more of its equity shares, or a person having beneficial interest in the business, or a person having responsibility for the management or operation of the business affords reasonable grounds for belief that its business will not be carried on in accordance with the law and with integrity and honesty;

(b) Contrary to subsection 6(2)(h) of the Liquor Licence Act, the licence is not in the public interest having regard to the needs and wishes of the residents of the municipality in which the premises are located.

(c) Contrary to section 29 of the Liquor Licence Act, liquor was permitted to be sold or supplied to a person who was or appeared to be intoxicated.

(d) Contrary to subsection 45(1) of Ontario Regulation 719/90 under the Liquor Licence Act, the licence holder permitted drunkenness or riotous, quarrelsome, violent or disorderly conduct to occur on the licensed premises or in the areas under the control of the licence holder.

(e) Contrary to section 50(c) of Ontario Regulation 719/90 under the Liquor Licence Act, the licence holder has failed to ensure that the premises complies with the Fire Protection & Promotion Act respecting the use of the premises.

Hearing: Alcohol & Gaming Commission of Ontario

90 Sheppard Avenue East, 3rd Floor

Toronto, Ontario

M2N 0A4

February 14 and 15, 2007

Presiding

Board Members: David C. Gavsie, Chair

Alex McCauley, Member

Counsel for the Registrar: Phillip Morris

Counsel for the City of Toronto: Ray Kallio and Jessica Braun

Exhibits: #1 – Letters, emails, and statements of public objectors

#2 – Letter to the AGCO dated October 10, 2006, from M. Mullins.

#3 – AGCO Notice of Proposal #14030 dated April 7, 2006

#4 – AGCO Notice of Proposal #13929 dated March 16, 2006

#5 – AGCO Supplementary Notice of Proposal #13929 dated May 9, 2006

#6 – AGCO letter from Richard Kulis to Dang Restaurant dated May 18, 2006

#7 – Document book submitted by City of Toronto

A hearing of the Board of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario (“AGCO”) was held on February 14 and 15, 2007, pursuant to a Notice of Proposal dated September 29, 2006 (“NOP”) to revoke the liquor licence issued to Cuong Ve Dang (the “Licensee”) for premises operating as DANG RESTAURANT, 99 Pape Avenue, Toronto, Ontario, M4M 2V7 (the “Premises”), licence number 281041 (the “Licence”);

At the conclusion of the hearing, the Board made an oral ORDER that the Licence be REVOKED IMMEDIATELY, indicating that written reasons would follow.

These are the written reasons for the said ORDER.

1. PRELIMINARY MATTERS

(a) At the commencement of the hearing, an application to transfer the licence made by 1660589 Ontario Inc. was withdrawn by its sole officer, director and shareholder, Mr. Wei Jun Liao. The withdrawal of the application meant that a second NOP issued by the Registrar dated October 30, 2006, to refuse to transfer the licence to 1660589 Ontario Inc. was also withdrawn

(b) Neither the Licensee nor any one representing him was present at the hearing. Mr. Morris, on behalf of the Registrar moved to proceed on an ex parte basis. Evidence was then presented indicating the Notice of Hearing had been sent to the Licensee, and that attempts to reach the Licensee by telephone the morning of the first day of the hearing were all unsuccessful. As a result, the Board ORDERED that the hearing proceed on an ex parte basis.

(c) A number of documents were tendered to the Board by Mr. Morris to be exhibits:

i. Objection letters and statements from area residents and a Notice of Motion to Toronto City Council made by Councillor Fletcher, all of which form the basis for the allegations in the NOP concerning public interest (Exhibit 1);

ii. Objection letter from Michael Mullins (Exhibit 2);

iii. AGCO NOP number 14030 to refuse to transfer licence dated April 7, 2006 (Exhibit 3);

iv. AGCO NOP number 13929 to revoke the licence dated March 16, 2006 (Exhibit 4);

v. AGCO Supplementary Notice of Proposal number 13929 to revoke the licence dated May 9, 2006 (Exhibit 5);

vi. Letter from AGCO to Licensee dated May 18, 2006 indicating withdrawal of Notices of Proposal 14030 and 13929 on the grounds of the withdrawal of a previous application to transfer the licence (Exhibit 6);

vii. Mr. Kallio placed a document book containing an index and 10 tabs in evidence (Exhibit 7).

2. CITY OF TORONTO’S EVIDENCE

(i) COUNCILLOR PAULA FLETCHER

Councillor Fletcher is the Toronto City Councillor for Ward 30 which includes the civic address of the Premises. She testified as to complaints she has received that the Premises constantly cause drug and prostitution problems, and that the patrons are extremely noisy just outside the Premises which are located in a 2 store mall at the north-east corner of Queen Street East and Pape Avenue in Toronto. People are afraid to walk near 99 Pape Avenue, whether on Queen Street or on Pape Avenue.

Since October 2006, things have been better and quieter because no alcohol is being served in the Premises.

Councillor Fletcher described the area around the Premises as being mixed commercial on Queen and residential on Pape Avenue. There is a community housing project and also a seniors' residence nearby. There is a streetcar stop at the northwest corner of Pape and Queen but people walk east to get the streetcar at the stop before this one to avoid the noise and other problems associated with the Premises.

Councillor Fletcher referred to tab 1 of Exhibit 7 being a notice of motion to Toronto City Council dated September 25, 2006 which she said had been passed by Council unanimously. The resolution stated in part:

“…City Council direct the City Clerk to advise the Registrar of the AGCO that the continuation of the Licence for Dang Restaurant is not in the public interest, having regard to the needs and wishes of the residents,…”

Councillor Fletcher referred to the letters in tabs 2 and 3 of Exhibit 7 expressing negative comments towards the Premises and the problems there. She said these were typical of numerous letters and e-mails she has received. She also said that 95% of the community believe the liquor licence at 99 Pape is a difficult problem. If the Licensee’s licence was to be revoked, the community and the witness would not only be grateful, but things would be much calmer, the illegal activity in and outside of the Premises would be reduced significantly, the peace and quiet present since October 2006 would continue, and a good quality of life would be restored to the area. It would put an end to the Premises being a hangout for illegal activity

(ii) STEPHEN BROOKS

Mr. Brooks has lived at 114 Pape Avenue since August 2006. His house is north of the corner of Queen on the west side of Pape Avenue and he can see the outside of the Premises from his property and house.

Mr. Brooks had compiled an Incident Log which was contained at tab 4 of Exhibit 7. The entries which started on August 24, 2006 were all written by Mr. Brooks from his observations at the time. There were 12 incidents in number up to October 9, 2006 relating to fights outside of the Premises, drug use there and finding needles in and around his property, threats, people yelling and screaming, etc. Police had been called and were present in approximately ½ of Mr. Brooks’ entries in the Log.

Mr. Brooks described a typical Friday and Saturday night in the parking lot which was situated in front of the Premises, around the whole Premises and the other store in the strip mall being the Donut Factory. There is lots of traffic, both vehicle and pedestrian. There could be fights, yelling and screaming. A woman could be pounding on the window of the Premises demanding that someone give her the money she is owed. Drug transactions are occurring just outside of the Premises. If one walks on the sidewalk near 99 Pape, there is a threatened unease about who is walking towards you. Clearly, there is a threat to the public safety. While Friday and Saturday nights were the worst, on other nights there were always people milling around. The noise and activity was constant 7 days a week.

The Licensee stopped serving alcohol in mid-October 2006. The effect was noticeable immediately. It was like night and day. No longer were there fights in the evening. The unsavoury element that hung around the Pape Avenue entrance to the Premises was gone. No drug transactions were happening.

Mr. Brooks also said that while there are other bars along Queen Street near Pape, some produce the same problems as Dang Restaurant, but not to the same extent.

(iii) NIKIFOROS IATROV

Mr. Iatrov has lived at 117 Pape Avenue since July 2006, and in the area for 3 years. Mr. Iatrov also spoke of the problems around the entrances to/exits from the Premises. He also said that he was constantly being awakened at 1 a.m. by loud fights and people getting into arguments, all from the parking lot around the Premises. The Donut Factory has chairs in front of it, and at night, these chairs are occupied by patrons of the Premises. He indicated his partner will not wait for the streetcar at Pape and Queen because of the parking lot issues. He has seen solicitation, drunkenness, broken bottles, fighting and arguments all in the parking lot of the Premises.

Since the service of alcohol ceased in October, the difference is very marked. Mr. Iatrov could only recall one instance of an argument during the night coming from the parking lot. There is no doubt the location is a problem. The parking lot in front of the Premises encourages loitering. It is in the middle of a mixed area. It is situated between 3 high density residential complexes. It is the epicentre for a perfect storm.

3. OTHER OBJECTORS

The Board heard evidence from the following objectors:

(i) Lynne Woodman who lives at 105B Pape Avenue;

(ii) Barbara Lavigne who lives in a seniors complex at 1070 Queen Street West;

(iii) Philippa Howell who lives at 3 Brighton Avenue, 3 side streets north on Pape Avenue;

(iv) Boris Mojsovski who lives at 105A Pape Avenue

(v) Michael Mullins who lives at 117A Pape Avenue

(vi) Robert Declerck who lives at 115 Pape Avenue

(vii) Kevin Scragg who lives at 199 Pape Avenue; and

(viii) Robin Hudson who lives at 100 Brooklin Avenue which is 1 block east of Pape Avenue.

All of these witnesses testified as to the issues they had seen in the parking lot outside of the Premises, or caused by patrons of the Premises or the actions of such patrons. Children living in the neighbourhood see these problems too, and are afraid to go near the corner of Pape and Queen. Patrons are using laneways and parks in the neighbourhood to carry on illegal activities – drugs, drinking alcohol, and prostitution, to name a few. The Licensee or persons he has put in charge are doing nothing to monitor and deal with any of these situations involving the parking lot or patrons.

2. CITY OF TORONTO’S EVIDENCE (continued)

(iv) DETECTIVE CONSTABLE (“D/C”) ROD BENSON

D/C Benson has been a police officer with Toronto Police Services for 7 years. Until January 2007, he was attached to 55 Division where the Premises is located. He is now assigned to the Toronto Drug Squad. He started his evidence by stating that Dang Restaurant is the number 1 problem in the 55 Division coverage area. It has more police attention and effort than any other place. D/C Benson was in the community response unit which deals with issues such as prostitution, drugs and over-service of alcohol. During the last 3 years at 55 Division, D/C Benson said he was at the Premises once a day, and in the immediate area of the Premises for 2 or 3 hours a day. There have been many arrests and laying of charges under the LLA at the Premises. There are underage drinkers and numerous fights and disputes in and around the Premises. There is a spike in activity when welfare and baby bonus cheques are cashed by patrons. Friday and Saturday nights are bad.

D/C Benson stated that police have carried out surveillance operations for drug dealers and users, prostitution operations. These operations have lasted days in duration and entire shifts.

D/C Benson described the building in which the Premises and the Donut Factory are located. The building is brick. There are plate glass windows on both the west (Pape Avenue) and south (Queen Street) sides. The parking lot surrounds the building in the front. There is a raised concrete walkway around the front of the building. There is an entrance into the Premises on the south side. On the west side there is another entrance shared with the Donut Factory.

From inside the Premises, a drug trafficker would have a 270 degree view of the outside giving him a complete view of police approaching the Premises and ample time to stash drugs, or giving the owners time to clear out the drunks.

The Dang Restaurant, according to D/C Benson is a hub. The criminals have a good view outside. Drug traffickers can sit and drink. The owners of the bar do not ask questions. The bar attracts prostitutes, drug dealers and users. They are not being kicked out. They sell drugs in the area. The users know what is going on. Crack cocaine is the drug of choice. Patrons will continue to frequent the bar because of the illegal activities going on there.

D/C Benson stated that with drugs comes some level of violence. Also a symptom is raised property crimes. Thieves sell stolen property through fences for cash. Real estate values in the area decrease. All of this activity invites more drug dealers into the area. A drug trade is extremely destructive to a community.

D/C Benson said that he has never seen anyone consuming beer outside. There is no patio area. He has witnessed crowds out front. It is not overcrowded, with perhaps usually 20 to 25 people inside with another 20 or so loitering outside.

D/C Benson stated he is familiar with the owner. The bar has changed hands a number of times. Management personnel inside the Premises are ignorant of or don’t care about the LLA. They are also ignorant of their responsibility to the community. They do not understand they can kick people out of the bar for being drunk or for doing illegal activities. The owners exhibit wilful blindness as long as patrons are buying beer. Beer is fairly cheap and the patrons want that.

D/C Benson referred to the Toronto Anti-Violence Intervention Strategy, or “TAVIS”. It is a squad of police who perform enforcement within an area with zero tolerance. In 2006, TAVIS was called in once a month prior to the Dang Restaurant being closed. In early 2006, D/C Benson investigated an underage drinker in the Premises. The person was charged as was the manager. 2 or 3 months later, the same youth, a known drug dealer, was stopped by TAVIS in front of the Dang Restaurant. The youth took out a pistol, threw it on the ground, and took off running. The youth escaped but could have been arrested later. This example shows that the Dang Restaurant is a powder-keg.

D/C Benson stated that from a police perspective, not having the Dang Restaurant licensed is a step in the right direction. By taking away its licence, it would make a huge impact on other area licensees, and on the community. It may not solve things, but it would be a positive contribution to the neighbourhood.

D/C Benson indicated that he knows who the Licensee is, but that he has not seen the Licensee for 3 years. He said that Hung Won Hang was charged with permitting intoxication in the Premises. She operated the Premises with her husband Chun Zhi Feng. Mr. Feng was also charged with serving underage patrons and permitting intoxication in the Premises in March 2006.

D/C Benson stated he has seen Wei Jun Liao and his wife in the Premises, particularly when they had first purchased the Dang Restaurant. D/C Benson has asked them at that time to become part of the solution, and repeatedly asked them to be that. They did not and the problems continued. D/C Benson showed them drug wrappings in the garbage and on the floor. He showed them where drugs were hidden in the cracks of the wall. He tried to work with the new owners to change their business for the better, but they chose to ignore his efforts.

D/C Benson stated that the problems at the Dang Restaurant are historical to all owners/managers. Since October 2006, the Premises have been closed because the AGCO issued an NOP to refuse to transfer the Licence. The drug dealers have gone elsewhere. They have been exposed which has led to many arrests. They have been driven into the daylight, according to D/C Benson.

D/C Benson said there were other bars in the area, both east and west along Queen Street. They may have overservice issues, but not drug or other criminal issues.

4. Registrar’s Evidence

(i) CONSTABLE KRIS PETERSON

Const. Patterson has been a police constable with Toronto Police Services for 5 years, attached to 55 Division. He is familiar with the Dang Restaurant in that as a plainclothes officer, he deals with LLA offences.

Constable Peterson attended the Premises due to incidents which occurred on October 4 and 6, 2005.

Constable Peterson stated that as a result of a fight that has happened a few days before, he went to the Premises to serve charges under the LLA. He did serve Chun Zhi Feng as the person in charge. While at the Premises, Constable Peterson noticed a male sitting on the north side of the Premises. He was talking but slurring his speech badly. He took offence to Const. Peterson, stood up, and was very unsteady on his feet. Const. Peterson formed the opinion that the male was intoxicated. Mr. Feng, the manager, grabbed the male’s beer – he had a pint and a ¾ full pitcher. Mr. Feng spoke to the male, and apologized to the police officers. The male got upset and started swearing. Mr. Feng refunded some money to the male and he left the Premises. At this point a second male got upset. He was sitting on the west side of the Premises. He chugged his beer and started yelling at the police officers. The second male was unsteady when he was sitting and when he was standing. His speech was slurred and he had red glossy eyes. He was clearly intoxicated. Mr. Feng told Const. Peterson that he would not serve the patron. The male had trouble walking. Const. Peterson told Mr. Feng that there would be further LLA charges forthcoming.

Const. Peterson was also at the Premises on October 6, 2005, in plainclothes. He was doing enforcement along Queen Street when he noticed a large group of people on the parking lot just outside the Premises. They were arguing and yelling. Several police officers went to see the group, and one male was investigated – Matthew MacKenzie. This occurred at 10 p.m. Mr. MacKenzie appeared to be intoxicated. His speech was slurred, he had red glossy eyes, and he was unsteady on his feet. There was a strong odour of alcohol on his breath. Mr. MacKenzie was in an argument with others in the group over nothing. Mr. MacKenzie told Const. Peterson that he has been drinking all night in the Premises and had spent $40.00 on beer. Mr. MacKenzie was upset because he felt the bar watered down the beer and recycled beer. Const. Peterson stated that the people who had spilled out of the Premises to the parking lot were either intoxicated or known to be involved in criminal activity.

Const. Peterson spoke to a second person on the parking lot – Anhiem Bol – who he knew from previous arrests on robbery charges. Const. Peterson did not enter the Premises, but approximately 5 other officers did.

(ii) CONST. DAVID CONFORTI

Const. Conforti is now a member of Durham Regional Police Services, but on September 30, 2005, was a member of Toronto Police Services attached to 55 Division. He attended the Premises on September 30, 2005, and entered around 9:25 p.m. There was a broken glass window. There were numerous patrons in the Premises, virtually all intoxicated and none were cooperative. Const. Conforti was responding to a call regarding a male seen bleeding outside the Premises who had been fighting inside. He found the victim and spoke to him. The male was being attended to by EMS. He was extremely intoxicated, had slurred speech, was very agitated and had a strong smell of alcohol on his breath. The male said he had been drinking, had gotten into a fight with his brother and put his own head through the window of Dang Restaurant.

Const. Conforti spoke to the owner of Dang Restaurant, Hong Yun Wang whose date of birth was given as November 7, 1953. He asked the owner for the licence which she showed him – licence 281041 in her name. She spoke little English. Const. Conforti told the owner the bar has to be cleared up and that all patrons had to leave. At that point, some patrons were yelling at the police officers. Const. Conforti then spoke to the other party in the fight who confirmed he had been in a fight with his brother. He was obviously intoxicated. Const. Conforti stated he asked the owner to take drinks off tables and clean up. The patrons left and went outside. Other officers had to come to disperse the crowd outside.

(iii) CONST. LES ROSETE

Const. Rosete has been a member of Toronto Police Services for 9 years. He was a plainclothes officer with 55 Division and was at the Premises on September 29, 2005, October 4, 2005 and October 6, 2005.

On September 29, 2005, Const. Rosete arrived at 16:15 with Detective Mark Daniels. They entered the Premises to conduct an LLA inspection. There were 3 people inside- a male, white patron in his 40’s stood out because he was showing signs of intoxication. The juke box music was loud. The witness asked that the sound be turned down. The male patron got upset with this request and challenged Const. Rosete to a fight. At that point, the operator took away the patron’s beer and told him to leave. After 15-20 minutes, the patron did leave. His eyes were glossy, he had a strong odour of alcohol on his breath, and he almost fell over when he stood up to challenge Const. Rosete. Const. Rosete estimated him to weigh about 120 pounds. Mr. Feng was the operator.

On October 4, 2005, Const. Rosete arrived at the Premises at 4 p.m. with Const. Peterson. Their mission was to serve Canada Evidence Act charges regarding a fight at the Premises some time before October 4. Mr. Feng was there.

Const. Peterson pointed out a male patron showing signs of intoxication. He was sitting across from the pool table. The male was pointed out to Mr. Feng who removed a pitcher of beer. The male was unhappy but left. Another male patron was sitting along the west wall. He also showed signs of intoxication. He was drinking from a beer mug. The male began screaming and yelling insults at the police officers. Const. Rosete told Mr. Feng to stop serving this male and to ask the male to leave, which Mr. Feng did. Const. Rosete served Mr. Feng with the charges from the previous date and told Mr. Feng new charges would be forthcoming.

On October 6, 2005, Const. Rosete was in plainclothes with 5 or 6 other officers walking up and down Queen Street. Around 10 p.m., they approached the Premises from the west. Drug dealers hang out in the door area. There was a scuffle outside. There were 5 people in the western part of the parking lot, but they were not fighting. There were 4 or 5 people pushing and shoving each other in the southern part of the parking lot. There were 3 males and 1 female, all in a physical confrontation mode. The female has slurred speech. She had to brace herself so as not to fall down. She was holding on to a make about age 50 and was holding him back from fighting.

The males were all showing signs of having had too much to drink. They were all yelling and screaming. Const. Rosete calmed them down and entered the Premises. There were 5 male patrons at the tables inside, all showing signs of intoxication. All had beer in their hands and were drinking. Const. Rosete spoke to the bartender who was asked to stop serving the 5 males. It was a warm night. There were about 15 people inside. Mr. Feng was behind the bar. The 5 males were sitting but were unsteady on their chairs and were wobbly. Their eyes were glazed. Const. Rosete spoke to each of the five. Each had a strong odour of alcohol on their breath. Const. Rosete left the Premises at 10:30 p.m.

Const. Rosete also said that a deadbolt lock was affixed to the fire exit door, and that there were always cases of empty beer bottles blocking the fire exit door and hallway leading to it. In fact, a licensee at the Premises had been charged with having deadbolts on 2 doors, 1 on an entrance door and 1 on the fire exit door.

4. Submissions by the City of Toronto

Mr. Kallio for the City of Toronto reviewed the serious allegations raised by the City against the Licensee – yelling in the parking lot, loud arguments, fighting, vandalism, drug activities, and theft. He referred to the evidence of Councillor Fletcher, the evidence of area residents including that of a senior who lives in the neighbouring seniors’ residence. These people will not even wait for a street car at the north-east corner of Queen and Pape. There are numerous cases of drunk patrons outside on the parking lot. There was a resolution of Toronto City Council supporting the revocation of the Licence. By revoking the licence, Mr. Kallio stated, the Board would be discouraging drunkenness and in particular, the Premises as a hangout for undesirables. Mr. Kallio noted that the evidence indicated that since October, 2006, there has been normalcy and calm around Dang Restaurant because there has been no service of alcohol there since that time.

Mr. Kallio summarized the evidence of Stephen Brooks and D/C Benson, and of the other residents of the area who gave evidence. He referred to tabs 5 to 10 of Exhibit 7 being the following:

(i) Tab 5 – a decision of the Ontario Liquor Licence Board, a predecessor of the AGCO, dated May 24, 1994 regarding the licence and premises at 99 Pape Avenue then known as the Peace Bar 7 Restaurant;

(ii) Tab 6 – a decision of the Ontario Liquor Licence Board dated March 9, 1995 regarding the licence and premises at 99 Pape Avenue then know as the Double Sun Restaurant;

(iii) Tab 7 – a decision of the Ontario Liquor Licence Board dated February 16, 1998 regarding the licence at 99 Pape Avenue then known as the Double Sun Restaurant;

(iv) Tab 8 – a decision of the AGCO dated October 29, 2001, regarding the licence and premises at 99 Pape Avenue then known as the P.Q. Restaurant;

(v) Tab 9 – a decision of the AGCO dated May 13, 2004, regarding the licence and premises at 99 Pape Avenue then known as the P.Q. Restaurant & Bar; and

(vi) Tab 10 – a decision of the AGCO dated May 28, 2005, regarding the licence and premises at 99 Pape Avenue then known as the P.Q. Restaurant & Bar.

All of the decisions relate to alcohol discipline matters such as apparent minor drinking beer, numerous instances of permitting intoxicated patrons on the premises, selling liquor not purchased under the liquor licence, an intoxicated patron had fought with other patrons, drug transactions taking place, and other violations.

Mr. Kallio stated that residents of the area are entitled to peace and quiet. They are entitled to the amenities of a neighbourhood. They need a rest. He also pointed out that the Licensee did not show up at the hearing, and he obviously does not care. He finished by saying there is an overwhelming case for a revocation of the licence under paragraph 6(2)(d) of the LLA.

6. Submissions by the Registrar

Mr. Morris, on behalf of the Registrar asked the Board to make findings on the following:

(i) Subsection 45(1) of the O. Reg. - this finding should be made based on the evidence of Const. Rosete from the night of September 29, 2005, and the evidence of Const. Conforti regarding the night of September 30, 2005, the evidence of both Constables Rosete and Peterson regarding the night of October 4, 2005, and the evidence of Const. Peterson regarding the afternoon of October 4, 2005.

(ii) Paragraph 6(2)(d) of the LLA – it does not matter who is running the Premises, the licence is in the name of the Licensee. As D/C Benson testified, no one has seen or heard from the Licensee in 3 years.

(iii) Paragraph 50(c) of the O. Reg. – the evidence of Const. Rosete about the fire exit being blocked by beer cases and bolt lock being on the fire exit door was compelling.

(iv) Paragraph 6(2)(h) of the LLA – the witnesses called by the City of Toronto were eloquent in their evidence, speaking about constant problems in or just outside of the Premises regardless of who was managing. The Property or ownership of the Premises is constantly being flipped. There are no other bars in the area like this one. It is unique with its plethora of problems. Management is completely lacking in its ability to control patrons and activities that go on in and just outside of the Premises. D/C Benson testified he tried to speak to a new manager/owner about a fresh start, but there was no uptake of his offer.

Based on the foregoing, Mr. Morris repeated the sanction sought in the NOP, namely, revocation of the licence.

7. Confirmation of Board Order

At the conclusion of the hearing, the Board ORDERED that the licence be revoked. Based on the unrefuted, consistent evidence of the witnesses, the Board CONFIRMS its verbal ORDER that the licence be REVOKED and makes the findings that the Licensee has breached:

(a) Paragraph 6(2)(d) of the LLA in that the past or present conduct of the Licensee and those managing the Premises affords reasonable grounds for belief that the business will not be carried on or in accordance with the law and with integrity and honesty;

(b) Paragraph 6(2)(h) of the LLA in that the licence is not in the public interest having regards to the needs and wishes of the residents of the municipality in which the Premises are located;

(c) Section 29 of the LLA in that liquor was sold or supplied to a person or persons who is or are, or who appears or appears to be, intoxicated;

(d) Subsection 45(1) of the O. Reg. in that the Licensee permitted – on numerous occasions – drunkenness or riotous, quarrelsome, violent or disorderedly conduct to occur on the Premises; and

(e) Paragraph 50(c) of the O. Reg. in that the Licensee failed to ensure regarding the fire exit door that the Premises complied with the Fire Protection and Prevention Act, 1997 respecting the use of the Premises.

DATED AT TORONTO THIS 12th DAY OF MARCH, 2007.

DAVID C. GAVSIE, CHAIR ALEX MCCAULEY, BOARD MEMBER

DCG/rb