Registrar, Alcohol and Gaming Commission Ontario v. Squeeze Liquor Emporium Inc., 2007 CanLII 37837

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-

Squeeze Liquor Emporium Inc. intending to operate as Squeeze Liquor Emporium Applicant

-and-

City of Burlington Intervenor

DECISION

Panel: David C. Gavsie, Chair of the AGCO Alex McCauley, Board Member

Decision Date: July 13, 2007

Hearing Location: Burlington, 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 ) Richard Kulis, Representative Squeeze Liquor Emporium Inc., ) Peter Copeland, Representative City of Burlington ) Kelly Yerxa, Representative

Authorities: Major Mack Hotel v. Mabley, (1999) CanLII 955 (ON C.A.) Fire Protection and Prevention Act, 1997, S.O. 1997,c. 4 Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c. 25

The Application

[1]. The Registrar of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario issued a Notice of Proposal dated November 21, 2006 (the “NOP”) to review an application for a liquor licence (the “Application”) from Squeeze Liquor Emporium Inc., (the “Applicant”), for indoor and outdoor areas at SQUEEZE LIQUOR EMPORIUM, 4170 South Service Road, Burlington, Ontario, L7L 4X5, (the “Premises”) establishment number 200843. A hearing of the NOP was held on January 30, April 19, April 20 and May 25, 2007 in the City of Burlington.

Decision

[2]. After considering all the evidence and submissions the Board APPROVES the Application on the conditions set out below. Reasons for these findings follow.

Preliminary Matters

[3]. Richard Kulis advised the Registrar took no position on the public interest aspects of the hearing.

[4]. Kelly Yerxa advised the Board the City of Burlington opposes the Application. On consent of all parties, the Board ordered the City be made a party to the proceedings.

[5]. At the outset of the presentation of evidence by the City of Burlington, an issue arose and discussion ensued regarding the exact capacity of the Premises being applied for by the Applicant. There are 3 distinct areas: (a) the main floor – 937; (b) the lower level – 735; and (c) outdoor patio – 735. The total of the 3 areas is 2,407. However, the Applicant confirmed actual maximum total capacity applied for in the Application is 1,672. Any persons on the patio would reduce the total number of people allowed in the main floor area and/or the lower level area.

Philip M. Elder, Public Objector

[6]. Mr. Elder attended the hearing as a witness but was not made a party.

[7]. The Premises, formerly operating as Splash, are located on the South Service Road by the Queen Elizabeth Way (“QEW”) highway. The Premises were not open for business in 2006.

[8]. Mr. Elder resides 1 kilometre from the Premises. He has resided in that area since 1979. He advised that when the Premises were open and being operated as Splash, he was bothered by noise every Friday and Saturday evening. He feels that if the new Applicant is permitted to open with an even increased patron capacity it will impact negatively on him and his family because of the noise.

[9]. Mr. Elder described the noise as a deep bass sound that seems to emanate from the area at the back of the bar. This area has 6 large garage style doors that open to the patio area. Mr. Elder said it has been suggested by the by-law department that the doors remain closed. This apparently did not occur.

[10]. Mr. Elder stated that because of the elevated location of the building in which the Premises are situated, the noise drifts down to his location. The situation has lingered on and on and has been frustrating for Mr. Elder.

[11]. Ms. Yerxa, through the witness, referred to page 3 of Ex. 2 which was in reference to a letter to Mr. Elder from the Burlington City Solicitor, advising him that noise by-law charges had been laid against the former licensee. She further referred to a noise study undertaken which has still not resolved the problem, even after a fence was constructed.

[12]. On cross-examination by Mr. Copeland, Mr. Elder advised he never entered the bar during any of his investigations. He drove into the south side parking lot and drove around to the back.

[13]. Photos of the club, the parking area and outside area were entered as Exhibits 3A to D. The front of the bar faces the QEW. The south side has the patio and the 6 garage doors. Mr. Elder was shown various photos indicating the location of the speakers inside the bar. He had never actually seen them before. Mr. Elder said that, in his view, if the large garage style doors were to be kept closed there would be no problem.

City’s Evidence

[14]. Ms. Yerxa outlined the City of Burlington’s position. The City is not objecting to the granting of a licence to the Applicant, they are objecting to occupancy size. Ms. Yerxa stated the City’s position that no night club could have a capacity in excess of 1000 persons. This was a long standing by-law in the City of Burlington and was seen to be in the public interest.

[15]. Ms. Angela Morgan is an employee of the City of Burlington. Her curriculum vitae and full job description are set out in Tabs 1 and 2 of Exhibit 4. She was largely responsible for coordinating the circulation of documents relative to the Applicant and City Council’s participation.

[16]. Her evidence was long and detailed but basically it revealed that there had been confusion around the initial filing of documents. A recommendation to City Council went forward to object to the Application based on the information at its disposal. The resolution passed June 12, 2006. She never had an opportunity to meet with Mr. Spirou, the Applicant, until June 26, 2006 after the resolution was passed.

[17]. At later meetings which involved the City Manager, Tim Dobbie, and Mr. Spirou the Applicant, indicated he wanted to move the Application along.

[18]. The City, at that point, had the occupancy listed as 937 based on the occupancy of the previous licensee. The Applicant was advised at these occupancy levels rapid approval was assured. The Applicant was advised that if he requested a greater capacity, then additional approvals would be required.

[19]. The Application became entangled in the requirement for properly completed forms and, when they were not all forthcoming, the process stalled.

[20]. On cross-examination, the witness admitted that the resolution was presented to City Council on May 29, 2006 based on the newspaper advertisement. Council passed its resolution on June 12, 2006 objecting to the granting of the licence. Council had the previous history of the Splash bar available to it but no information on the current Applicant. The witness stated she was not totally aware of who the Applicant actually was and was not sure the previous applicant was not involved.

[21]. Previous conduct issues related to the former licensee were the basis of the information passed to City Council when they reviewed the request for the resolution.

[22]. The public consultation referred to in the resolution was not actually carried out. The public input reference was to a night club study undertaken previously by the City when the public had an opportunity for input (at that time no one from the public responded).

[23]. Ms. Morgan in answers to questions on cross-examination confirmed that there was no realistic public input in the report that went before City Council that led to City Council’s decision to oppose the granting of permission for the licence. Public input was assumed because no one came forward with any objections, and she received the police report on the Night Club study as public input.

[24]. In answer to a clarification question from the Chair of the Panel, the witness stated that the only “public interest” in her report to City Council was from the Police Service.

[25]. Mr. Steven Thurlow is the Fire Chief of the City of Burlington. Chief Thurlow gave evidence from his report in Exhibit 4, Tab 2. He also gave evidence in reference to the City of Burlington’s Night Club Study report. (Exhibit 4, Tabs 6 – 8)

[26]. He had input into reports cited in the City of Burlington’s various reports set out in Exhibit 4. The reports in part outlined reasons that the liquor licence application of the Applicant be denied. The fire department had prepared reports as appendices to the original report of its position (Exhibit 4, Tab 14 Appendix A and B). These reports indicated the inspection and violation history of the club while owned and operated by the previous licensee.

[27]. In summary, the concern of Chief Thurlow was the ability of the fire service to respond effectively to a night club fire with occupancy in excess of 1000 persons. He cited in his report other significant fires over time in other jurisdictions in large clubs that caused extensive loss of life.

[28]. Under the direction of Chief Thurlow the Fire Service undertakes joint inspections of night clubs in the City in conjunction with the police service and inspectors of the AGCO. This is in order to ensure compliance with the fire safety code and the fire emergency plan.

[29]. Chief Thurlow stated it was his experience that the Fire Safety Plan at clubs was often not followed and because of rapid turnovers in staff often times training was lacking. He was very concerned that a club was often guilty of a lax attitude when it came to ensuring a viable fire safety plan.

[30]. On cross-examination Chief Thurlow advised that the complement of fire fighters at his disposal is 168 full time and 70 volunteers.

[31]. Chief Thurlow stated that many of the club fires referred to in his report were the result of overcrowding.

[32]. Mr. Rotsma is a member of the Burlington Fire Department. He has 25 years experience as a fire fighter and for the past 12 years he has been in charge of fire inspections at various premises for the fire service (Exhibit 4, Tab 3).

[33]. He stated there are two processes followed in fire prevention:

a) protection, which ensures that there are systems and procedures in place to control a fire; and

b) prevention, which are efforts in place to prevent a fire starting.

[34]. Mr. Rotsma stated that fire safety and prevention are his areas of expertise.

[35]. Mr. Rotsma has conducted site visits at 4170 South Service Road, the address of the Premises.

[36]. Mr. Rotsma advised that they conduct fire safety inspections on the larger clubs. There are 12 to 14 that they visit on a regular basis. In one evening they may be able to inspect 5 to 7 clubs.

[37]. Mr. Rotsma stated he had concerns about large occupancy clubs from a safety and prevention aspect. There are codes relating to safety and building which outline the features of the building. The fire service has to consider its response capabilities. Smaller crowds are easier to control in an emergency. His concern in part is that in a large crowd situation people do not respond to alarms or directions as well as smaller more manageable groups.

[38]. He stated he could not explain the public’s reluctance to respond to alarms. Patrons of a club all seem to feel it is a false alarm. He gave evidence of an incident at a club where he heard the alarm ring and no one evacuated. The establishment was unable to re-set the alarm yet no one evacuated. He was concerned that in an environment where people are consuming alcohol, they tend to make poor choices.

[39]. Mr. Rotsma stated that the 1000 capacity number reflected in the City of Burlington’s By-law 2020 is there to keep the numbers of patrons at a controllable level. He stated that, in his experience, staff of establishments do not respond as well with crowds above 1000 persons.

[40]. Clubs are required to implement and review a safety plan and update the document as required. Staff of the club is required to know the details of the fire safety plan and to be able to implement the correct course of action in a fire emergency.

[41]. In his experience Mr. Rotsma stated that compliance with the fire safety plan is spotty to say the least. Many violations cited against clubs are for failure to carry out the requirements of their fire safety plan. In addition he has tested staff on their knowledge of the fire safety plan, and found that they are not properly aware of the plan or their obligations within the plan. Training is necessary. Clubs are often over capacity and this further exacerbates a bad situation.

[42]. Charges have been laid for non-compliance with the fire safety plan, not only with the former licensee but at other clubs as well.

[43]. On cross-examination, Mr. Rotsma advised that the fire safety plan comes from the Fire Safety Code. A new club owner would have to have an approved fire safety plan and the local fire department would have input into developing a proper plan for that particular club.

[44]. Mr. Rotsma advised that the garage doors at the proposed site on South Service Road do not comply with the fire code. They cannot be considered as a proper emergency exit because they do not open automatically and, further, do not swing out.

[45]. Questioned about the Station Club Fire in Rhode Island, Mr. Rotsma did not know if the club was over capacity at the time. He was asked about the study of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and the simulation they conducted on the Station Club fire. He advised he was familiar. In that study a computer generated re-enactment of the fire was undertaken. That re-enactment added 3 sprinkler heads to the scenario. The study concludes that, had sprinklers been in use at the Station Club, the fire would have been extinguished in 25 seconds and no “flashover” would have occurred. He agreed that in all the cases where there had been large losses of life in club fires, sprinkler systems were not in use.

46. Mr. Rotsma stated that the Burlington Fire Service does not have the resources to undertake a rescue operation of 1000 people. The Fire Safety plan would be relied on to ensure that emergency evacuation was undertaken when the first indication of an emergency became apparent. Mr. Rotsma stated that the following would make a difference in a working fire:

a) proper and well marked exits

b) larger wider exits would be better.

c) comprehensive fire safety plan, implemented by trained staff.

d) a sophisticated communication plan and communication system.

e) a working sprinkler system.

47. Mr. Andrew Fletcher is Deputy Chief of Police for Halton Regional Police Service appeared in place of Mr. Barker the officer who is familiar with the Premises. He had direct input into the City of Burlington’s Night Club Study and was unable to attend the hearing due to illness.

48. Mr. Fletcher advised that he was familiar with the City of Burlington’s night club study and that the police service had supplied input for the study. The police report regarding the night club study is set out in Exhibit 4 at tab 7.

49. Mr. Fletcher outlined his experience with nightclubs over his career. He stated that larger capacity clubs have a tendency to be more unruly. He further pointed to the spin off problems for police when these larger capacity clubs exit at closing time. Often, in his view, problems arise at restaurants and other places where the patrons who have been drinking congregate afterwards. It is not just the problems with the clubs themselves but the larger community problem caused when the clubs exit.

50. On cross-examination, Mr. Fletcher stated he had never been to the Splash Nightclub while it was open, nor had he seen the physical premises. Mr. Fletcher admitted that there was not a lot of potential community interaction such as restaurants close to the location of the Premises, reducing the chance of associated problems from the crowd exiting the Premises at closing time.

Applicant’s Evidence

51. Mr. Richard Simpson is a retired Deputy Fire Chief from the City of Toronto. He has over 32 years of experience in the fire service with 3 years as Deputy Chief (Exhibit 7). Mr. Copeland sought to have Mr. Simpson declared an expert witness in regards to fire safety and suppression as it related to this hearing. After reviewing his qualifications and nature of his proposed evidence the Board declared Mr. Simpson as an expert witness.

52. Mr. Simpson had toured the facility at South Service Road and met with the Applicant. Drawings showing current plans and additional changes such as exits and stairways to the basement area and patio area were made Exhibit 5.

53. Mr. Simpson advised that there was a working sprinkler system within the structure and he stated that this was critically important to the overall fire safety aspect of the site. Mr. Simpson stated in an open concept such as Splash the working sprinkler system would be an excellent tool to suppress a fire. Mr. Simpson had no negative comments in regard to the building structure or to the planned renovations to the club.

54. Mr. Simpson’s evidence for the most part dealt with a fire service’s lack of ability to affect a rescue of 1000 persons from any institutional working fire. Rescue is affected at the site. A working fire safety plan is critical to immediate, rapid and safe evacuation of patrons. Alarm systems and other detection systems are critical as are fire suppression systems such as sprinklers.

55. Fire services generally arrive too late to effect rescue from a working fire. If nothing has been undertaken to begin rescue between the time of the first call to the arrival of the first team, the fire service will generally be undertaking a recovery not a rescue. As oxygen is depleted in the structure in a working fire people start to become incapacitated and die in relatively few minutes. Mr. Simpson stated that after 10 to 12 minutes in an active working fire rescue opportunity is virtually nil. In the best case scenario, if all the first responders were at the ready, it would take 5 to 10 minutes from the time of the call to arrive on scene. By the time the scene was assessed and the rescue plan implemented if no action initially had been taken at the scene, unless active steps were taken at scene prior to the arrival of the first responders, chances of a viable rescue would be slim to nonexistent. Rescue must be commenced at once.

56. In Mr. Simpson’s opinion, the size of the fire service or the first response capability is not the ultimate question. The critical issue is what was being undertaken at the scene prior to the fire service’s arrival. Thus, the existence of an approved fire safety plan understood by staff on site was critical. In Mr. Simpson’s opinion a viable fire safety plan implemented on scene at the time of the emergency being first detected and a fire suppression system such as a sprinkler system were key to enabling a rescue to take place. Mr. Simpson stressed the value of a working sprinkler system. The research data supports the success in preventing loss of life when such a device has been present in such a facility.

57. On cross-examination, Mr. Simpson admitted that he had never consulted with the Burlington Fire Service during the completion of his report. He relied on information available on the city’s web site for this information and that information available for the City’s Emergency Plan. Mr. Simpson further admitted that he had not worked on a composite fire service. That is a fire service which relies on volunteer firefighters to support the professional firefighters.

58. Mr. Simpson admitted that sprinklers are heat activated and smoke can build up in hidden combustible areas like ceiling tiles and when the fire erupts can have dangerous consequences. He could not state if any of those hazards were present in the proposed site. He did reiterate the overall value of the sprinkler system overall.

59. On redirect, Mr. Simpson stated that in the initial response to the fire emergency in which the critical time period was the issue, that it would be unlikely that volunteer firefighters would be making that initial response.

60. Mr. Demetrios (Jim) Spirou, the Applicant, is 32 years of age. He has had business experience in the music business once owning a network of stores which supplied disc jockey type equipment and music. He was forced to downsize with the advent of computers in the music industry. He also had limited experience in licensed establishments working as a server.

61. In night clubs he has worked as a disc jockey, but has never managed a licensed establishment or been an owner. Mr. Spirou advised he has a specific vision for Splash. He wants it to be a place for the over 25 crowd, catering to a more professional clientele. Music is a part of that vision but a more subtle variety not the loud bass type. Mr. Spirou stated that the three speakers facing south would be separated and redirected. This would address the complaint of Mr. Philip Elder. Mr. Spirou further stated that he would not object to members of the community being present when sound levels were tested.

62. Mr. Spirou stated that he would be a “hands on” manager but that he would employ a chief of security to handle security matters who would report to him. Mr. Spirou stated that security systems would be employed to ensure that persons could only access either the main floor or the basement area. Patrons would not be permitted to wander between venues and each area would have independent access to the patio. There would be 23 security personnel on the main floor and 9 on the lower level. This would be at peak operating times. Security personnel would be clearly identified and equipped with two way radio communications. He estimated a total employee list of 48 staff.

63. Mr. Spirou stated that he is prepared to work with the Fire Service and the City of Burlington in order to ensure a cooperative and safe environment.

64. On cross-examination, Mr. Spirou admitted that the places he had previously worked as a server had a capacity of less than 200 and had no dance floor. He opposed a condition on the licence that would stipulate a minimum requirement for security personnel or the location of the speakers. He confirmed that patio occupancy would be strictly controlled and would not exceed 735 persons. The total occupancy for the facility would be no greater than 1672.

65. There were concerns raised about how counts of people would be maintained. Access to the patio could easily be undetected via the open garage style doors. Access to the patio is prevented by a small railing which could easily be crossed without security noticing.

66. In redirect Mr. Spirou stated he would do all that was required to maintain proper security in the garage door area.

City’s Submissions

67. Ms. Yerxa states that it is not in the public interest to allow a licence in excess of 1000 persons and directed the Board’s attention to the City Council’s June 12, 2006 resolution opposing the licence because of concerns around capacity. Ms. Yerxa stated that the City represents the public and speaks for them. Splash is welcomed by the City. The only issue is occupancy. The City would withdraw its objection to the issuance of a licence if the Applicant would agree to a limit of 1000 persons in compliance with the City of Burlington’s zoning by-law dealing with licensed clubs.

68. City Council has a statutory obligation to ensure public safety for its citizens. Ms. Yerxa pointed to the City’s Night Club study which was a joint venture by the Police and Fire Departments with the opportunity for public input. She stated that evidence clearly supported the limit of 1000 persons from a public safety perspective. Ms. Yerxa also pointed to the financial burden imposed on the community in having to prepare for emergencies at large clubs.

69. With respect to the evidence, Ms. Yerxa submitted the Board should consider the testimony of City’s emergency staff more favourably than Mr. Simpson’s given their hands on experience and more in-depth knowledge of the City and its ability to respond adequately to emergencies.

Applicant’s Submissions

70. Mr. Copeland argued that the City’s objection is not reflective of the true public interest. Other than Mr. Elder, there was no objection from the public. No one from the general public took the time to respond to the initial Night Club study the City relied on to pass its June 2006 resolution opposing the Application. With regard to Mr. Elder’s objection, steps will be taken to alleviate his concerns. Speakers will be moved and it will be a different music set up, much gentler in content.

71. Crowd dynamics such as those posed by the police will not be likely in the South Service Road area. There are no after-hours restaurants and little or no outside distractions from the club. The clientele are going to be an older, more disciplined crowd not prone to the antics of a younger, less disciplined group.

72. The fire safety issue is a matter that is far more complex than even the Night Club study indicates. There is no a clear correlation shown between an emergency of 1000 person club or a club with 1600 patrons. Mr. Simpson in his evidence stated that the initial action on scene is critical as much or more than first response capabilities. There is a need for a complex approach which will ensure optimum safety and must incorporate the things Mr. Simpson indicated such as a proper approved fire safety plan and a good fire suppression system such as a sprinkler system.

Reasons

73. This situation revolves around the fact that the City of Burlington has a zoning by-law which limits the occupancy of night clubs in the City to 1000 persons. The application before the Board is for 1,672 . The Board understands that there is a dispute between the City of Burlington and the applicant as to whether the City’s zoning by-law which limits nightclub occupancy to 1000 person occupancy applies to the premises in question or could the premises have a higher occupancy on the basis that this would constitute a legal non-conforming use. The Board does not intend to make any pronouncements with respect to that issue which must be resolved in a different forum.

74. The City’s representative stated that the City is willing to see a licence issued to the Applicant without conditions if occupancy is held to 1000 persons which would then conform to the City’s by-law.

75. The City’s Night Club study is the basis for their occupancy ceiling in the zoning by-law. While there was an opportunity for public participation in that study no one from the general public came forward. The City would have the Board believe that this is common and that, by not participating, the public left it to Council to act on their behalf. It is the Board’s experience that where members of the public object to the issuance of a licence or a City Council decision, they do participate and are quite up-front with their objections. The Board is not prepared to consider the Night Club study as evidence of the general public’s view on these issues. In respect of this Application, the Board heard from a single citizen. His complaint was about noise from speakers on the south side of the Premises when the doors were open. There was no complaint at all in regard to occupancy or problems associated with occupancy from the public at large.

76. There was overwhelming evidence from the Fire Department as to their capability to respond to an emergency in a facility of over 1000 persons and affect rescue. Unfortunately, they never clearly established the difference between responding to an emergency involving up to 1000 people and one over 1000 people. The 1000 number was in the view of the Board arbitrary. In addition, the first response capability was never an issue regarding the fire departments ability to organize for such an eventuality.

77. There have been horrific fires in clubs with large loss of life in other countries. The cause of fires and loss of life are generally different but in most cases were the result of inadequate safety plans and equipment, in addition to overcrowding. The numbers requested by the Applicant for this facility would not create overcrowding in the facility based on the numbers as presented to the Board.

78. The Board appreciated the sincerity of the emergency officials who appeared on behalf of the City of Burlington. They are qualified professionals who represented the City very well. The Board was impressed, as well, with the evidence of Mr. Simpson. His evidence clearly illustrated the need for on scene action to save lives. First responders cannot do it. What is needed is a proper approved fire safety plan and a fire suppression system, all designed to go into action immediately when an emergency is detected. The Board was impressed by the safety and life saving value of a sprinkler system. The value of such a system cannot be overstated.

79. The Board is of the view that the undertaking by the Applicant in this venture is indeed daunting considering the magnitude of the project and his virtual lack of experience. The assurances around matters of security are ones that the Applicant will be held to and the costs including proposed renovations will be high. The Board’s concern around this is that if profit margins are low or non existent the Applicant may be forced to cut back in certain key areas making him and his establishment vulnerable to errors, and potential breaches of the LLA.

80. The Board is impressed with the overall vision of the Applicant but would be more in favour of a go slow approach. We would like to ensure that the Applicant is well positioned to take on this massive undertaking. There is much to be done and once the club is up and running the applicant will then be in a better position to assess his abilities’ to expand further.

81. The Board wishes to see a cooperative arrangement between the City and the Applicant. No one wins when the atmosphere around the venture is acrimonious. The City has offered to sit and review the Applicant’s possible expansion plans in the future. This cooperative partnership will be beneficial to all parties.

Order

81. For the above reasons and subject to the following conditions the Board APPROVES the Application for liquor licence made by Squeeze Liquor Emporium Inc., intending to operate as SQUEEZE LIQUOR EMPORIUM, 4170 South Service Road, Burlington, Ontario, L7L 4X5, establishment number 200843, subject to the receipt of all municipal compliance letters and licensing requirements.

82. The Board ORDERS that the following conditions be attached to the licence:

83. Maximum occupancy for all licensed areas will be 1000 persons, subject to review within one year upon application of the licensee.

84. There shall be no more than 600 people at any time on the patio and the Licensee shall ensure security are present to control this number.

85. Music volume will be monitored to ensure that there is no excessive noise. The three speakers on the south side of the premises will be set up in such a fashion that they are not directed toward the “garage style doors”. In addition, the speakers referred to will not be side by side but will be separated in such a fashion as to mitigate their overall sound.

86. There will be a fire alarm system, emergency lighting, and a sprinkler system all in working order at all times.

87. There will be a fire safety plan in place that satisfies the requirements of the City of Burlington. Staff and managers will receive training in the plan, and refresher training on a regular basis. A record of such training and upgrades or changes to the plan will be kept in a common location in the Premises and shall be presented for inspection when requested.

88. There will be an adequate number of clearly identified and trained security staff on duty at all times in order to ensure safety and compliance to the Liquor Licence Act.

89. Renovations as proposed will be completed within 6 months of the issuance of the liquor licence.

DATED AT TORONTO THIS 13th DAY OF JULY, 2007

ALEX MCCAULEY, BOARD MEMBER DAVID C. GAVSIE, CHAIR

AM/sm