ALCOHOL AND GAMING COMMISSION OF ONTARIO
IN THE MATTER OF The: Liquor Licence Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. L.19, as amended
B E T W E E N:
Registrar, Alcohol and Gaming Commission Ontario Registrar
-and-
Marco Paulo Ormonde O/A North Restaurant (The) Applicant
DECISION
Panel: Guy Maurice, Board Member Eleanor Meslin, Board Member
Decision Date: July 17, 2007 Hearing Location: Barrie, Ontario
Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario 90 Sheppard Avenue East, Suite 300 Toronto ON M2N 0A4 Phone (416) 326-0366 Fax (416) 326-5566 Website: agco.gov.on.ca
Appearances
Registrar, Alcohol and Gaming Commission ) Bryna Kaplan, Representative Marco Paulo Ormonde, Applicant ) Marshall Green, Representative
The Application
1The Registrar of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario (“AGCO”) issued a Notice of Proposal dated June 13, 2007 to review an application for a liquor licence April 4, 2007 from Marco Paulo Ormonde (the “Applicant”), for a liquor sales licence for the indoor and outdoor areas of the premises for NORTH RESTAURANT (THE), 66 Dunlop Street West, Barrie, Ontario, L4N 1A4, establishment number 808008 (the “premises”). A hearing of the Application was held on July 9, 2007 in the City of Barrie.
Decision
2After considering all the evidence and the submission the Board approves the Application for the indoor and outdoor areas at North Restaurant (The), subject to all relevant approvals. Reasons for this decision follow.
Preliminary Matters
3No objectors appeared at the hearing and the Board decided to proceed in their absence.
4The Registrar’s representative indicated that the Registrar would not be taking a position in this matter.
5The Registrar’s representative submitted a package of letters from objectors (Exhibit 1).
Applicant’s Evidence
6Ellen Brohm is employed as a law student at Mr. Green’s law firm. She offered in evidence a Book of Photographs (Ex.2), which she had taken, of the premises and its surrounding neighbourhood, which she described in detail.
7She testified that she had contacted three of the objectors by telephone: Bill LeBoef, Stacy Foley and Cathy Pinter.
8They each acknowledged that they had signed the objector’s petition. They had done so before it had opened, believing it would be the same type of establishment as the previous one, Crazy Fingers Blues Café.
9Once they had visited the new premises, they indicated to Ms. Brohm, they were no longer objecting to the application.
10Ms. Brohm further testified that Mr. Green had received an e-mail from Dr. Stacy Foley (Ex.3) reiterating that while she no longer objected to the liquor licence for inside the premises, she still maintained her objection to “an outdoor area being licensed.”
11Gordon Knox is an urban planner and owner of a neighbouring property.
12His concerns related to the previous restaurant regarding the type of clientele and the noise.
13Although his name appeared on the petition he has since decided, after visiting the new establishment, that he was no longer opposed to the application and would support it.
14Michael Oliver owns a barber shop across the street. He, too, signed the petition but has since changed his mind and is now in support of the application.
15Marco Ormonde is the owner of The Night Club. As background he submitted a biography, which is attached to the restaurant menu (Ex 4), outlining his restaurant experience.
16He testified that he had completely renovated the premises, including installing a new kitchen.
17After the application poster went up and he became aware that the objectors thought it was just a renovated “Crazy Fingers”, he explained to them that his restaurant would cater to “high-end” diners. After listening to him, they agreed not to attend at the hearing.
18Mr. Ormonde wants the liquor licence because he is now losing 50-60% of customers, who walk away when they learn that there is no liquor sold with meals.
19He indicated that the patio would be used only for dinner table service and not for just liquor service. It will have no access from the street, only through the restaurant. There will be no music on the patio during regular serving times.
20Mr. Ormonde has applied to the City for patio use, since the land belongs to the City. If there are any problems with the patio, Mr Ormonde has promised to shut it down.
Applicant’s Submission
21Mr. Green pointed out that many of the people who had signed the petition now support the application and none of the others appeared at the hearing to voice their objections.
22He indicated that, in regard to the patio, the City owned the land and would be setting conditions, which Mr. Ormonde has agreed to follow.
Decision and Reasons
23The Application for a liquor licence for the indoor and patio areas is granted.
24The burden of proof to establish that paragraph 6(2)(h) of the Liquor Licence Act applied to the applicant lies with the objectors. They did not appear at the hearing to make their case.
25Accordingly, the Board FINDS that the objectors have failed to satisfy their onus that the issuance of the license is not in the public interest having regard to the needs and wishes of the residents.
26Therefore, the Board APPROVES the application made by the Applicant, subject to the filing and approval of all the usual required clearances.
DATED AT TORONTO THIS 17th DAY OF JULY, 2007
ELEANOR MESLIN, BOARD MEMBER GUY MAURICE, BOARD MEMBER
EM/sm