LIQUOR LICENCE ACT, R.S.O. 1990
In the Matter of: Sauble Lodge Motor Inn
213 Second Ave. N.,
Amabel Twp.,
Sauble Beach, ON
N0H 2G0
Licensee/Applicant: John Ivan Kraner
Licence Number: 20925
Notice of Proposal: To REFUSE to remove conditions and to ADD conditions
Dated May 1, 2006
Hearing: Wiarton Arena
531 Scott Street,
Wiarton, Ontario
March 7 & 8, 2007
Presiding
Board Members: Alex McCauley, Member
Guy Maurice, Member
Counsel for the
Registrar: Brad Alton
Agent for the
Licensee: Natasia Kraner
Party to the
Proceedings: Marlene Schnurr, for the objectors
Exhibits: #1 – Council of the town of South Bruce Peninsula –
Council Resolution and residents letter of objection
#2 - Letters of objection from residents
A hearing of the Board of the Alcohol & Gaming Commission of Ontario (“AGCO”) was convened on March 7 & 8, 2007 at the Wiarton Arena, 531 Scott Street, Wiarton, Ontario, pursuant to a Notice of Proposal dated May 1, 2006 to refuse to remove conditions and to add conditions to a licence issued to John Ivan Kraner (the “Applicant”)operating as Sauble Lodge Motor Inn, 213 Second Ave. N., Amabel Twp, Sauble Beach, ON, N0H 2G0, licence number 20925.
Nature of the Application
The applicant has applied to the Commission to remove conditions on the licence that:
“1. From the May long weekend through Labour Day, every year, all service of Alcohol will cease at midnight on Friday Saturday and Sunday nights and all signs of service cleared by 12:45 a.m.
- Sauble Lodge will provide adequate security staff outside the licensed establishment from 10:00 pm to 1:00 am. on the same nights identified in condition # 1 to control and reduce noise and prevent loitering.”
And to add the following conditions:
“(1) From the May long weekend through Labour Day, every year, all service of Alcohol will cease at 1:30 p.m. on Friday, Saturday and Sunday nights and all signs of service cleared at 2:15 a.m.
(2) Sauble Lodge will provide adequate security staff outside the licensed establishment from 10:00 p.m. to 2:30 a.m. on the same nights identified in condition # 1 to control and reduce noise and prevent loitering.”
Counsel for the Registrar indicated that the onus is on the Licensee to prove to the Board that conditions have changed.
EVIDENCE FOR THE APPLICANT
Natasia Kraner has known the Licensee since 1994. She has been involved with the business on a part time basis since the Licensee purchased the Lodge in 1995. In 2004 they married and she became a full time Manager of the Lodge in 2005.
The licence was suspended in July 2003. She started to rebuild and operate the business in different ways but business has continually decreased. A Liquor Inspector suggested they apply to the Board seeking a change in conditions imposed by the previous Board order. All she is asking is an extension of one hour. She is of the opinion this minor change would not disturb the neighbours. In her view the noise referred to by the objectors comes from the cabins, not the Lodge, from patrons who frequent other drinking establishments and from parties along the Beach. Any vandalism comes from those sources as well. She advises that there has been no problem in the past 3 years.
On cross-examination, the witness admitted she was aware of the noise problems and the damage complaints which arose between 1998 and 2000. She claimed these problems occurred after the bar closed. Mr. Alton suggested the licence was first suspended in 2001, rather than 2003, and that the conditions in question were imposed at that time. This was the reason there had been no problems in the past 3 years. The witness did not recall this sequence of events. Asked to identify what had changed so that the problems would not happen again, Ms Kraner indicated that, if business gets busy again, extra security would be hired to supervise.
Mr. John Kraner was asked to explain the need for the hour extension. He stated the extra hour would attract more business and a different, older and more orderly, clientele who would use the dining room and the bar. Security inside and outside the Lodge would be available to maintain peace and quiet.
Asked to explain why an older clientele would want the bar open to 1:00 or 1:30, he replied that people do not want to leave at midnight and the later time was better for the people who wanted to dance. Changing the dance music to country and western would also help because that music is more acceptable to an older crowd.
Mr. Kraner stated there were 3 bars within the Lodge as well as a large dance floor and pool tables. Cabins are rented to younger crowds and they create the noise problem. Problems happen on the street outside and away from the Lodge. The applicant confirmed that he owns another establishment in Tobermory and comes over to Sauble Beach on weekends.
Asked about the two prior suspensions and his plans to prevent future problems, the Applicant replied that drunks come from other areas and with adequate security the problem would be under control. The change of music in the bar will help and, should patrons become intoxicated, they would be driven home and keys removed because there is no taxi service.
EVIDENCE OF REGISTRAR
Mr. Alton introduced South Bruce Peninsula Town Council resolution opposing the application as well as the other objection.
Lyle Ransome, By-Law Enforcement Officer, has held this position since l998 and is familiar with the Lodge. He has spoken with the owner of the Lodge on several occasions about noise. Attempts were made to quiet down the noise which was mostly from cabins next door. OPP officers became involved in enforcing the noise bylaw. Dances used to last until 2:00 a.m. however, after conditions changing the closing time to 12:00 am. were imposed, the noise problem at the Lodge has not occurred. There were no calls in 2006. Mr. Ransome states that Town council advised the owners to hire security or off-duty OPP Officers but nothing was done. He further states that only one other establishment in Sauble Beach has had similar problems and it is now under new ownership which he hopes will correct the problem.
Ms. Kraner asked if problems would occur if conditions were lifted. The Officer could not answer such a question.
Lorraine Waugh lives directly across from the Lodge and has been living there for 20 years. She stated that the last 3 summers have been good. Prior to the conditions being put on the licence she witnessed people fighting on her lawn, had her furniture covered with urine, and found empty beer bottles on her property. Busloads of patrons used to arrive at 1:00 a.m. creating an unbearable situation at the bar. She opposed removing the conditions believing the old problems would return if no corrective plans are implemented.
Asked if she thinks that one extra hour would make such a difference and the witness reiterated her fears that any extension of time would cause a return to the situation prior to the imposition of the conditions.
Marlene Schnurr has owned her cottage for 20 years. She recalled the problems that developed in 1998-l999-2000 when patrons were allowed to stay until 1:30 a.m. In the past, as many as 70 empty beer bottles were found on private property and patrons who drank at home and then came to the bar were responsible. She agreed there have been no concerns since conditions were imposed and expressed her fear that removing the conditions would cause the old problems to return. She stated that, while the Kraners are hard working people, the business is more suited for a restaurant than a bar. The objectors are not trying to close the place down but only with conditions imposed have they been able to enjoy peace and quiet.
SUBMISSIONS
Ms Kraner would like to live in harmony. She understands that the residents have a problem but so do the owners. They are prepared to make changes by attracting a different age group with different music and hire sufficient security to control the inside and outside of the Lodge. She claims the problem is from the cabins when teenagers occupy them. To attract different clients they need the extra hour. They plead for a trial period to prove themselves.
Ms Schnurr stated that the proposal to extend the operation to 1:30 a.m. is not justified. The existing conditions are acceptable and the only thing different is a different type of music. Noise is not the only issue: the owners cannot control people once they leave the bar.
Mr. Alton stated that the Board has heard evidence about how bad things were in the past, prior to 2001, when conditions were imposed. The Board heard from the By Law Enforcement Officer that, from 1988 until the conditions were imposed, problems existed. The owners tried to control the problem but failed. Town Council advised the owners to hire security or off-duty OPP Officers but nothing was done. Evidence is clear that since conditions were imposed there have been no problems and such improvements were not because of any other reasons. The only change proposed by the Licensee is a change of music. Such a change should have been implemented and proven prior to applying for a change in the conditions. At this time the Licensee has not shown cause why he should be granted a change in the conditions.
Ms Kraner does not know why the changes would not be better. She wants the Board to instruct them as to what they should do.
DECISION
The Board may, on application of a licensee, remove conditions of a licence if there is a change of circumstances. The issue for the Board is whether there has been a change of circumstances sufficient to justify the removal of the conditions. The Commission has received numerous written objections from residents of the Municipality to the removal of the conditions. Council for the Town of South Bruce Peninsula also opposes the proposed extension of hours which the Board must consider pursuant to subsection 7.1 (1) of Ontario Regulation 719/90.
The Board notes that the conditions were imposed on the licence at this location after a hearing pursuant to the decision dated July 23, 2001 (see Sauble Lodge Motor Inn [2001] O.A.G.C.D. No. 267). On that occasion the Board had been asked to revoke the licence. It declined to do so and instead imposed the conditions which are now the subject of this application. The evidence before this panel confirms that the decision to impose conditions was right: the problems of noise and vandalism have been resolved such that, in 2006, there were no new noise complaints.
Having considered all aspects of the matter, the Board is sympathetic to the Applicant’s situation. Had the Applicant produced a business plan, made its proposed changes in advance of the hearing and had those proposed changes delivered the hoped for results, the outcome of this hearing might have been different. Unfortunately, there is no evidence before the Board that any changes in circumstances have occurred. The Applicant’s expectations and hopes are not objectively verifiable. They cannot justify the removal of the conditions.
Therefore, the Board hereby DENIES the application to remove the conditions and to add conditions.
DATED AT TORONTO THIS 5th DAY OF APRIL 2007.
GUY MAURICE, BOARD MEMBER ALEX MCCAULEY, BOARD MEMBER
GM/mw