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-

1475750 Ontario Limited O/A West Side B.B.Q. Restaurant

Licensee

-and-

City of Toronto

Intervener

DECISION

Panel: Brian J. Ford, Member Alex McCauley, Member

Decision Date: August 8, 2007

Hearing Location: Toronto, 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:www.agco.on.ca

Appearances

Registrar, Alcohol and Gaming Commission ) Joyce Taylor, Representative

1475750 Ontario Limited ) Lou Ciotoli, Representative ) on April 11 and 13, 2007 ) only

City of Toronto ) Ray Kallio, Representative

Allegations

1. A hearing into a Notice of Proposal dated November 14, 2006 to revoke liquor license number 200621 (the “Licence”), operating as West Side B.B.Q. Restaurant, 853A Bloor Street West, Toronto, Ontario, M6G 1M3 (the “Premises)”, on the basis of alleged violations of subsections 6(2)(h) and 30.1(1) of the Liquor Licence Act (LLA) and subsections 45(1), 31(1)(c), 33(1), 35(1) and 53 of Ontario Regulation 719/90 (O.Reg) made pursuant to the LLA, and Supplementary Notices of Proposal dated January 12^th and March 20, 2007 to suspend the Licence on the basis of alleged violations of subsections 33(1) and 45(2) of the O. Reg. was held on April 11, 13 and May 24 and 31, 2007 in the City of Toronto.

Decision

2. At the conclusion of the hearing the Board issued an oral order revoking the Licence with written reasons to follow. (See 1475750 Ont. Ltd. (West Side BBQ) 2007 CanLII 21351 ON A.G.C.) These are the Board’s reasons.

Preliminary Matters

3. The Board’s order of February 6, 2007 was introduced (see West Side B.B.Q. Restaurant 2007 CanLII 6195 ON A.G.C.) The order gave party standing to the City of Toronto and dealt with disclosure issues.

4. Ms. Taylor advised that the Registrar supported the City of Toronto’s position regarding the public interest portion of the hearing. Citizens assembled were given an overview of the process by Ms. Taylor and the Board. Mr. Kallio requested and was granted permission to make an opening statement.

5. At the outset of the second day of hearing Mr. Ciotoli moved to have the public interest part of the hearing held first followed by evidence concerning the disciplinary matters. Both Mr. Kallio and Ms. Taylor objected. They were concerned this would delay the hearing and there were numerous witnesses who overlap on the discipline and public interest issues. Mr. Kallio stated that there was no prejudice to the licensee by proceeding in this fashion. Ms Taylor noted the Licensee will have the opportunity to hear all the evidence before responding. In reply, Mr. Ciotoli suggested the City, by selecting the witness list, had eliminated the need for public input, or at least reduced the value of public input to the hearing.

6. The Board denied the motion finding the public interest and discipline matters inextricably connected and intertwined. Many of the witnesses have evidence relevant to both aspects of the hearing. To attempt to separate or sever the proceeding would throw the hearing into disarray and result in prejudice to all parties. The public’s right to be heard is fundamental to the public interest aspect of the hearing. When they are heard in the hearing does not diminish the value or importance of their evidence. The Board rejected Mr. Ciotoli’s contention that to delay the hearing of their evidence undermines the value of that evidence

City of Toronto’s Evidence

Joe Pantalone, Deputy Mayor City of Toronto

7. Mr. Pantalone is the Councillor for the Ward in which the Premises are located. Mr. Pantalone has lived in this area for 41 years and his home is 4 blocks from the bar. He has been a City Councillor for 26 years. This is his 4^th year as Deputy Mayor.

8. Mr. Pantalone stated he is familiar with the Premises but has only been in the Premises once. His familiarity stems from the complaints he has received about this particular bar. Mr. Pantalone stated that people generally do not feel comfortable around Westside B.B.Q. because of the undesirables who congregate in and around there.

9. Mr. Pantalone described the area as largely urban residential. There are businesses and residential areas within the described area. The area is cosmopolitan demographically with peoples of many ethnic backgrounds living and working in the area.

10. Mr. Pantalone was directed to copies of letters complaining about the Premises contained in the City’s book of documents (Exhibit 2, Tab 4). Citizens regularly complained both by letter and in person at his constituency and business office. Antisocial behaviour and no management control of West Side B.B.Q. was a common theme. He rarely, if ever, received these types of complaints about other businesses in his Ward.

11. Business owners are concerned about the activities at the Premises but many are reluctant to come forward publicly for fear of reprisal. The Premises are located in the middle of the block. There are currently 6 empty commercial establishments in the area. Mr. Pantalone is of the opinion that this is due, in part, to the activities that take place at the Premises.

12. Asked about the chronology of events and specifically about a community meeting June 19, 2006, Mr. Pantalone explained that at that meeting he heard from concerned citizens and business people who were upset about conditions around the Premises. People were being harassed by intoxicated patrons on the street in front of the Premises. There were complaints that inappropriate and lewd remarks were made to women who walked by. There were drug transactions taking place. The community was suffering because of this establishment and citizens were afraid to be in the area of this establishment.

13. On July 25, 2006 Mr. Pantalone brought a notice of motion at Toronto City Council. The Notice of Motion (Exhibit 2, Tab 1) listed a number of concerns about activities on the Premises: drug offences; breaches of the Liquor Licence Act; noise; and public safety concerns. The Notice of Motion called on the AGCO to revoke the licence because it was not in the public interest and, further, sought standing for the City in any process undertaken by the AGCO to revoke the licence. The motion passed without dissent.

14. Mr. Pantalone reiterated his position that the liquor licence for the Premises is not in the public interest. If the licence is revoked, Mr. Pantalone is of the belief that there will be peace in the neighbourhood, people will feel more secure and a source of drug trafficking will have been removed.

15. In cross-examination Mr. Pantalone confirmed he had only been in the Premises once and had never contacted the owner of the Premises about his concerns. He was in the bar on June 8, 2006 for about 5 minutes and did not ask to speak to the owner. It was during a community safety march and Superintendent White of the Toronto Police was there. He spoke with someone in the Premises but Mr. Pantalone did not know who. Mr. Pantalone has never spoken with the owner of the building in which the Premises is located and did not know his identity. He agreed he was not aware the Premises were owned by a different owner from August 18, 2005 to July 26, 2006, the time of his motion before City Council.

16. The volume of persons using the Bloor/Ossington subway station was raised. It was determined that approximately 2000 persons may enter or exit that station per day. Mr. Pantalone advised there was street parking in the area but he was not sure if there was parking at the rear of the Premises.

17. While the owners of the Premises were not specifically invited to attend the community meetings held to discuss the concerns with the Premises, he presumed they would have received a copy of the community notice circulated to business and residents in the area.

18. Mr. Pantalone did not make notes at the community meeting. The police were there and they made notes. He could not recall specifically which police officers were present. He did not keep notes or records in regard to his meetings with residents about the Premises.

19. Mr. Pantalone did not have specific information about drug trafficking at the Premises. He received information from the police and concerned citizens. This drug use was alleged to have taken place from 2004 until 2007.

20. Mr. Pantalone could not say if improvements had been made to the Premises recently.

Howard Page, S/Sgt. Toronto Police Service

21. The Board qualified S/Sgt. Page as an expert witness on the matter of drug trafficking, drug use and drug enforcement in general. S/Sgt Page is a 27 year member of the Toronto Police service and, until February of this year, was in charge of the vice section in 14 division dealing with drug related investigations. West Side B.B.Q. is located within his investigative area and he was very familiar with the establishment. The Bloor/Lansdowne area has seen a trend amongst the drug dealers moving more to the Bloor/Shaw area. West Side B.B.Q. is the focal point for the illicit drug trade, primarily “crack” cocaine, which is the drug of choice.

22. The problem in the area is street level traffickers and addicts. The level of purchases is $20.00 buys, at the lowest end of the scale. The spinoffs from this activity are robberies and other property crimes perpetrated so that the addicts can afford to buy. The source of narcotics is related to an establishment; traffickers are not mobile. The buyers generally come to them.

23. S/Sgt. Page described an incident in October 2006 where surveillance and undercover officers were used to combat drug dealing out of West Side B.B.Q. Often the transaction or contact takes place on the Premises but the actual pass off occurs away from there at Christie Pitts, an area park, or some other close area.

24. Mr. Ciatoli objected to S/Sgt. Page’s testimony concerning drug dealing in October 2006 on the basis the NOPs only referred to drug dealings on January 8 and 9, 2007. He moved for an adjournment to allow him to obtain proper disclosure of these allegations.

25. Mr. Kallio opposed the adjournment on the basis this evidence was part of the public interest aspect of the case and Licensee’s Counsel should be surprised because evidence of drug dealing prior to January 2000 had been given through the previous witness, Mr. Pantalone.

26. The Board denied the motion for adjournment. The Board felt there was no surprise given the evidence of widespread drug dealing from the Premises had initially come from Mr. Pantalone and his source was, in large part, the police. Counsel were cautioned about future disclosure issues and directed to ensure that all relevant information was properly disclosed.

27. S/Sgt. Page has seen crowds in front of the Premises impeding pedestrians who want to walk by. Often patrons of the Premises went outside to smoke cigarettes. He has seen intoxicated patrons stagger out of the Premises. In his view, this establishment has had a negative effect on the community. Significant community resources have been required to maintain police operations in the area of the Premises.

28. S/Sgt. Page was part of the investigation team on January 8 and 9, 2007. He was permitted to refer to his notes in order to refresh his memory. He explained that a combination of plain clothed surveillance officers and back up uniformed officers made up the project teams. He explained the surveillance process and the process of recording the observations being made. The project team had a dedicated radio frequency exclusively for their use.

29. The target area for the police project team was a rectangle covering the north and south sides of Bloor, Ossington to the west and Shaw to the east. West Side B.B.Q. and Coffee Time Donuts, located a short distance from the Premises, were both targets. He briefed the team at the police station between 2:15 and 2:25 p.m. At 2:47 p.m. the team became operational. During the surveillance, persons of interest were voiced over the radio. One such person was a black male with long braided hair wearing a grey “hoody” sweater. This male was later identified as Andrew Haley. Mr. Haley was observed in front of West Side B.B.Q. At one point, 2 males approached the front of the Premises and, after a short conversation with Mr. Haley, entered West Side B.B.Q.

30. A short while later another male, white wearing a beige parka, beige toque and later identified as Jose Quintanilla, attended at the Premises on a bicycle. He parked the bicycle and entered the Premises. S/Sgt. Page received information from another member of the surveillance team that Quintanilla was meeting with Mr. Haley at a table in the Premises. A hand exchange had occurred between them. Mr. Quintanilla placed something in his gloved right hand.

31. Mr. Quintanilla exited the Premises and left eastbound on the south sidewalk of Bloor on his bicycle. Uniformed officers arrested him at 3:09 p.m. and a quantity of crack cocaine was recovered in from his glove. S/Sgt. Page drove by the arrest scene and confirmed that Mr. Quintanilla was the person they had observed.

32. Meanwhile Mr. Haley had exited the Premises and was walking westbound on Bloor St. He was observed crossing to north side of Bloor St. At 3:10 p.m. S/Sgt. Page ordered his arrest. He was arrested by uniformed officers and escorted to the police station.

33. At the police station S/Sgt. Page and D/Cst. Tanobe conducted a video interview with Jose Quintanilla. In the interview, Mr. Quintanilla admitted to being addicted to “crack” cocaine. He had attended at the Premises on the advice of a friend who had said he should look for a black man there and he would be able to obtain the cocaine. Andrew Haley, was the only black person on the premises. He had approached Mr. Haley and the deal was consummated. He admitted to putting the “crack” cocaine in his glove. He had stated he had seen the product and was familiar with “crack” cocaine and was convinced that he had purchased “crack” cocaine. Mr. Quintanilla was released from custody on conditions.

34. The officers returned to the area and were operational shortly before 6:30 p.m. At 6:31 p.m. Mr. Quintanilla was observed coming to the front of the Premises in direct violation of his terms of recognizance not to be in the area of the Premises. At 6:35 p.m. Mr. Quintanilla was arrested for breach of recognizance.

In response to a question as to why Mr. Quintannila would return so soon to the area he was arrested, S/Sgt. Page stated that, based on his experience, Mr. Quantanilla was severely addicted and would take any risk to get his needed narcotic. At this point Mr. Quintannila would not have been aware of the arrest of the dealer Mr. Haley. What does this have to do with the issues you need to decide?

35. After the arrest, the team again became operational in the area. A black male and an Asian woman entered West Side B.B.Q. They exited a short while later and walked quickly eastbound on the south side of Bloor St. They stopped outside a variety store where they were observed with their backs to the store looking into an object in the hand of the male party. The male person entered the variety store coming out a short time later. S/Sgt. Page ordered their arrest and a quantity of “crack” cocaine was recovered from inside the hat band of the male’s hat. The female suspect was released at the scene. The male suspect was identified as Daniel Yohannes. S/Sgt. Page stated his reasonable and probable grounds for the arrest was possession of drugs prior to Mr. Yohannes entering the variety store. The drug trafficker was not located. Operation ended at 7:47 p.m.

36. On Tuesday January 9, 2007 officers were briefed at approximately 1:00 p.m. The team was dispatched to the area of West Side B.B.Q. and became operational at 3:00 p.m. They were in the area from 3:10 to 4:45 p.m. and no activity was encountered. The surveillance was paused over the rush hour period and recommenced at 6:30 p.m.

37. At 6:47 p.m. a black male was observed outside of the Premises in conversation with a white male. The black male was identified as Target #1 and the white male was later identified as Renato Catalano. Both men were close together and Target #1 dropped a small object into the right hand of Mr. Catalano. Mr. Catalano walked quickly westbound on Bloor St. on the south side of the street. He was observed looking at an object in the palm of his right hand and fingering the object with his left hand. In the meantime Target #1 had gone back into the Premises. Mr. Catalano was arrested by uniform members of the team and found to be in possession of “crack” cocaine.

38. Target #1 was observed in conversation with 2 males, later identified as Derrick Penasse and Dennis Awangada in front of the Premises. A short time later Target # 1 re-entered the Premises while Mr. Penasse and Mr. Awangada stayed outside. Within minutes Target #1 exited the Premises and then all three walked eastbound on the south side of Bloor St. At approximately 6:54 p.m. Target #1 was in a hand-to-hand exchange with Mr. Awangada while Mr. Penasse kept watch. This, in and of itself, is significant behaviour indicative of drug transactions. The arrest of all 3 targets was directed and the arrests were affected by uniform and plain clothes officers. Mr. Awangada was in possession of “crack” cocaine. Target #1 attempted to swallow a quantity of “crack” cocaine but was prevented from swallowing it all by the investigating officers.

39. Ms. Taylor asked S/Sgt. Reid if Mr. Catalano had mentioned anything about the Premises. He answered “yes” at which point Mr. Ciotoli objected on the basis he had not received disclosure of Mr. Catalano’s statement or any officer’s notes in relation to this interview. Ms. Taylor advised she did not have the transcription at this time but could obtain it in short order. She further stated that Mr. Ciotoli could have requested this information but did not.

40. The Board ruled this information ought to have been disclosed and to continue with the witness at this time without giving Mr. Ciotoli an opportunity to review the statement and properly advise his client would be unfair and prejudicial to the Licensee. The Board directed Registrar’s council to provide Mr. Ciotoli with the transcript of the interview of Mr. Catalano and any available officer’s notes in relation to that interview by the end of the business day April 11, 2007. Counsel were directed to meet and ensure disclosure on all sides was complete. The hearing was adjourned until 9:00 a.m. April 13, 2007.

41. At the outset of the third day of hearing Mr. Ciotoli stated he had not received proper disclosure in a number of areas. He requested the Board order disclosure of:

• Audio tapes of interviews.

• Details of officer’s notes regarding offences listed in Exhibit 2 Tab 6.

• The opportunity to recall Deputy Mayor Pantalone for further cross-examination on the list of 46 items in Exhibit 2.

• Police officer’s notes in relation to the events listed in Exhibit 2 Tab 7.

• Det. Monterro’s notes re: a meeting June 8, 2006 and Oct. 6, 2006 chronology of events.

• Copies of the minutes of meetings of the Business Improvement Committee outlined in Exhibit 2.

42. Both Ms Taylor and Mr. Kallio objected on the basis the requested disclosure were intended to delay the proceeding and amounted to a fishing expedition.

43. The Board denied Mr. Ciotoli’s requests. Mr. Ciotoli had a full and fair opportunity to cross-examine Deputy Mayor Pantalone on the contested material which was disclosed as part of Exhibit 2. The request for audio interview tapes is not reasonable as the transcripts are sufficient. The minutes of the Business Improvement Committee meetings are not relevant to the issues to be decided in this hearing. Further, the Chair of that Committee will be a witness and will address the Committee’s resolutions. Mr. Ciotoli will have the opportunity to fully cross-examine that witness. The request for details of officer’s notes on investigations outlined in Exhibit 2 tab 6 is not reasonable. This relates to the public interest portion of the hearing and is simply indicative of events that have occurred. There will be no evidence from the officers on these matters and officer’s notes need only be disclosed for those areas on which they will give evidence if called.

44. S/Sgt. Page is of the opinion that if the liquor licence of West Side B.B.Q. is revoked, drug trafficking in the area will be reduced significantly. Street level traffickers need a source and if one is not available they move on. In his view the Premises has a reputation as a source for drugs. In the 14 Police District there are three main sources of drugs: the Premises, Twelve thirty Bar and Coffee Time Donuts. Coffee Time Donuts and West Side B.B.Q. are approximately 25 yards apart.

45. In cross-examination S/Sgt. Page was questioned as to procedures followed during the surveillance project. In relation to the arrest of Daniel Yohannes it was suggested that perhaps Mr. Yohannes had obtained the “crack” cocaine in the convenience store as opposed to the Premises. S/Sgt. Page disagreed and stated he had formed the reasonable and probable grounds to arrest Mr. Yohannes for possession of a narcotic before he entered the convenience store.

46. The police were never able to apprehend the drug dealer inside West Side B.B.Q. identified as Pablo. S/Sgt. Page said he had never encountered Pablo, but that dealers have street names that often change weekly so it is not unusual to not recognize street dealers by a name.

47. S/Sgt. Page described the hand exchange of the narcotic inside the Premises involving Jose Quintanilla. Page stated that the “crack” cocaine was found concealed in Quintanilla’s glove and that Quintannila himself confirmed it as “crack” cocaine. He agreed he was not able to hear conversations of persons in front of the restaurant.

48. S/Sgt. Page has never spoken directly with the owners of the Premises. He mentioned a meeting held by him in which approximately 100 licensees from the area attended. All had been invited by flyer that had been passed out by officers. He could not state for sure if the owners of the Premises had attended.

49. O n redirect S/Sgt. Page confirmed he did not believe the owners of West Side B.B.Q. were directly involved in the trafficking of “crack” cocaine. Asked by the Board whether, based on his experience in these types of investigations, the owners would be aware of drug trafficking taking place, he stated that anyone working in the Premises would have to be aware that drug trafficking was taking place on the Premises.

50. The hearing continued on May 24, 2007 at the Bickford Community Centre. Ms. Taylor commenced the hearing by providing the Board with a letter, Exhibit 3, from Mr. Ciotoli indicating he no longer represented the Licensee, that the Licensee had closed the Premises and intended to surrender the liquor licence. The Licensee, Sheng Zhai, was not present and neither was Mr. Ciatoli. Ms. Taylor advised the Board that the Registrar had not received an application to surrender the licence.

51. Both Mr. Ciotoli and his client Mr. Zhai were aware of the date of the continuation of the hearing, had been present when it had been set, and chose not to attend. In the circumstances Ms Taylor requested that the hearing continue ex parte. She noted there was an extremely high interest in this establishment and the negative impact it has had on this neighbourhood. Ms. Taylor also informed the Board that the Registrar would not accept a voluntary surrender of the liquor licence and continued to seek a revocation.

52. The Board ordered the hearing would continue ex parte. (see 1475750 Ont. Ltd. (West Side BBQ) 2007 CanLII 21350 ON A.G.C. ) The Interim Decision was delivered to all parties in the normal fashion. Neither the Licensee nor counsel attended the hearing on May 24 or 31, 2007. The Licensee had notice of the May hearing dates, as they were set on agreement with Mr. Ciatoli and in the Licensee’s presence, and, further, the Licensee had adequate and effective notice of the Board’s ex parte order. The Board is satisfied that the licensee is aware of the dates that have been set for the hearing and chose not to attend or further participate in the hearing in any fashion.

53. Detective Constable Robert Monteiro is a nine year veteran of the Toronto Police Services and is a drug officer. His duties are in the major crime section with responsibility for prostitution, drugs, and liquor licence premises. He is familiar with West Side B.B.Q. from a professional and personal perspective and has been involved in numerous liquor and drug offence investigations concerning the Premises. He has had numerous discussions with the owner, staff and patrons of the Premises about numerous complaints respecting the establishment. Very few liquor licence establishments generate the problems associated with West Side B.B.Q. Revocation of the liquor licence of the Premises would breathe a breath of fresh air into the surrounding community.

54. D/Cst. Monteiro noted that the owner of the establishment has been on scene during investigations. The owner felt that he was being picked on and appeared to be unwilling to take any responsibility for what was happening. He did not take any steps to remove violators from the Premises. It seemed to D/Cst Monteiro he was only interested in turning a dollar. D/Cst. Monteiro concluded the Licensee did not have effective control of the establishment.

55. D/Cst. Monteiro was involved in the January 8 and 9, 2007 police operation. He was the officer in charge of the mobile team composed of eight surveillance officers and four uniformed arrest officers. D/Cst. Monteiro gave evidence with regard to the events consistent with the evidence of Staff Sergeant Page.

56. On June 30, 2006 D/Cst. Monteiro attended West Side B.B.Q. with Liquor Inspectors Lynn Sandiland and Devin Sookdeo. At the time the bar was quiet. He approached the female server and identified himself advising her that he and the AGCO liquor inspectors would be conducting a liquor licence inspection of the establishment. During the inspection a twenty-eight pack of beer was found in the beer storage area. The twenty-eight pack of beer is not available for licensed premises and therefore had to have been purchased off licence. The same type of beer in the twenty-eight pack was being sold at the bar. A uniformed police officer from the community patrol unit arrived and confiscated the illegal beer and gave the licensee, Mr. Zhai, a property receipt as well as a summons. During the inspection, a Hispanic male was loud and aggressive, banging on the counter. This male was exhibiting obvious signs of intoxication. He subsequently left, staggering to the door of the Premises.

57. On November 30, 2006, D/Cst. Monteiro was in the company of other officers doing static covert surveillance of the Premises. He had a vantage point near the front of the Premises from where he could observe the interior. There were about ten to fourteen patrons in the establishment, most of whom were consuming alcohol. He noticed a black male wearing a brown jacket and black pants smoking inside the premises. This male had an argument with a patron. He was very noisy, appeared unsteady on his feet with slow motor skills. A native female, identified as Angel Shipman, was acting disorderly and going into a plastic bag and drinking something. Ms. Shipman was served alcohol by a female server. On checking, Ms Shipman was found to be wanted on a warrant for theft. She left the establishment and took a cab with a Hispanic male. The cab was stopped and Angel Shipman was arrested. At the time she was in possession of a plastic bag containing a six pack of beer and a partially consumed bottle of Sambuca liquor. She exhibited obvious signs of intoxication, had difficulty maintaining her balance, her speech was slurred and she was belligerent.

58. Devin Sookdeo is a Liquor Licence Inspector with the AGCO. He testified he visited West Side B.B.Q. on October 13, 2006 at 12:29 am with liquor Inspector Foster to conduct a liquor inspection. On entering the establishment he noted a male wearing a red jacket drinking Budweiser beer exhibiting signs of intoxication: his speech was slurred, he had a strong odour of alcohol, his eyes were bloodshot and glassy and he was unsteady on his feet. Inspector Sookdeo spoke with the Manager, a Ms. Stella Pao, about the male and she agreed he was intoxicated. He then noticed another male wearing white blue jeans and a black leather jacket who was also exhibiting the signs of intoxication. This male was drinking from a glass of beer. His eyes were glassy, his speech was slurred and he was unsteady on his feet. The Manager, Ms. Pao, agreed that this male was also intoxicated. Inspector Sookdeo and Inspector Foster left at 12:39am.

59. Inspector Sookdeo went to West Side B.B.Q. on October 14, 2006 with Inspector Baird and Inspector Borgoin. He noted a female in a pink vest, green shirt and jeans exhibiting signs of intoxication; she was unsteady on her feet, had slurred speech and her eyes were red and glassy. She was drinking from a bottle of beer. The Manager was advised and took away the beer.

Community Interest Evidence

60. Mr. Charles Barnes lives at 723 Shaw Street, approximately ten houses south of Bloor St. He has lived at this location for approximately twenty-seven years. He is in favour of the revocation of the liquor licence of the Premises. In the last four years there has been an increase in drug activity at the Premises and in the immediate neighbourhood of the Premises. The drug trafficking is very evident. He has seen lookouts come out and prospective buyers go in and make purchases. The drug activity goes on inside and in front of the establishment but there is activity in the back laneway as well. He has deliberately chosen not to walk on the side of Bloor Street directly in front of the Premises because of the type of crowd that exists there. His adult daughter has to get off at another subway stop and walk through Christie Pitts Park rather than risk walking in front of the Premises. There are drunken patrons on the street in front of the Premises and there are fights on numerous occasions. This goes on from opening to closing.

61. Mr. Bill Murnighan lives at 819 Shaw, a block north of Bloor St., and has lived there for over ten years. He is in favour of the revocation of the liquor licence. The Premises has had a major impact of the quality of life for his family. Any time the bar is open there are ten to twelve or more people on the sidewalk in front of it. For the most part these patrons move in and out of the bar and are definitely intoxicated. He has observed people drinking from bottles of beer while standing on the sidewalk. He too has to walk on the opposite side of the street because he is intimidated when walking in front of the Premises. There is drug trafficking going on as well. He personally followed a person, whom he knows is a drug user, to the Premises and saw first hand the drug sale take place. He noted since the bar closed the drug trafficking has stopped

62. Mr. Stewart Wilson lives at 726 Crawford Street, just north of Bloor, and has lived there for a number of years. He is in favour of the revocation of the liquor licence of West Side B.B.Q. He works out of his home and spends time in the neighbourhood during the day and shops at local stores. He has seen first hand drunken behaviour directly in front of the Premises during the day. When he walks his dog near the establishment the patrons out front smoking and drinking yell at his pet. He noted that the level of intoxication of the patrons out front is often high. Mr. Wilson has a fourteen year old daughter and patrons on the sidewalk have leered at her, and she is subsequently afraid to go near the area, which forces her to take a detour to get home.

63. Mr. Tim Hachbarn is the Manager of the Drop-in program at the Christie-Ossington centre. The Centre has a drop-in program and women’s shelter at night. It is funded by the City of Toronto. The Centre also deals with homelessness and has an addiction/alcohol rehabilitation program as well. West Side B.B.Q., which is near the Centre, has had a considerable impact on its clients. Drug dealers have come to the centre in order to sell drugs to clients. Clients are very vulnerable and are being pressured by dealers who work out of the Premises. They have had to remove these people on several occasions from inside the Centre. On a number of occasions he has gone to the Premises to talk with the owner but the owner was never there. He saw the same people who were dealing drugs at the Centre inside the Premises. He also noted patrons who were heavily intoxicated. He and fellow workers, on a number of occasions, had to go to the Premises to remove people who were highly intoxicated and clients of the Centre. He stated that they finally had to stop their clients from going there. He has, on numerous occasions, seen fighting in front of the bar and on one occasion an ambulance had to respond because of injuries to the people fighting. When there was a police presence on the street drug dealers stayed inside the Premises. Selling of drugs inside and outside the establishment was very apparent and occurred mostly in the evenings and on weekends.

64. Ms. Angela Burns is has lived in the area for seventeen years one block west of West Side B.B.Q. She is a member of the Christie Ossington Residence Association and is in favour of the revocation of the liquor licence. Ms. Burns used to have breakfast at the Premises; however the situation changed in the past four years and more dramatically in the past two years. She is now afraid to walk by the establishment. Ms. Burns also noted that her daughter is afraid to walk near the Premises and after school she has to take a considerable detour to get home. As a member of the Christie Ossington Residence Association, she did a walking safety tour with the police and looked inside the establishment, which she described as disgusting and filthy. The Premises has had a heavy negative impact on the lives of her family and that of the other residents in the neighbourhood. It has caused them to be fearful of being in the area of the establishment. In the past week, since the closure of the bar, it has been considerably relaxed.

65. Mike Zimmerman has lived on Crawford, south of Bloor, for 25 years. He is also in favour of the revocation of the liquor licence of West Side B.B.Q. He noted for the Board that his life has been negatively affected by what has been happening at the Premises and concurred with the other witnesses on type of conduct of the patrons of the establishment.

66. Diane Vandervliad has been a resident of the area for the past five years and is in favour of the revocation of the liquor licence of West Side B.B.Q. She is unable to walk her young baby down the street near the Premises for fear of something happing to her child. There are drunken patrons on the street in front of the establishment, drinking and spitting and throwing cigarette butts which, on one occasion, almost hit her two year old daughter’s stroller. She now avoids the area. Ms. Vandervlaid likes to live in the inner city and does not wasn’t to be pushed out of her neighbourhood.

67. Mr. Barry Hillier has lived in the area near West Side B.B.Q. for the past five years and is in favour of the revocation of the liquor licence for the establishment. A drug dealer whom residents of the area had evicted from an apartment nearby was regularly dealing drugs out of the establishment. In Mr. Hillier’s opinion, the Premises has made the area a very dangerous neighbourhood. The impact of the establishment went well beyond the front and back doors. Drug dealing went into the park and onto nearby streets. He urged the Board to take action on this issue for the safety of the community.

Submissions

68. Mr. Kallio submitted there was sufficient police and community evidence to show the dramatic negative impact that the Premises has on the neighbouring community to permit the Board to revoke the liquor licence of the Premises under section 6(2)(h) of the LLA.

69. Ms. Taylor submits there is ample clear and convincing evidence for the Board to make a finding of a breach of all of the allegations in the Notice of Proposal and Supplementary Notice of Proposal. She concurs with the City regarding the revocation due to the impact on the community. Ms. Taylor also advised the Board that the Registrar would be advising the owner of the building in which the Premises is located of his intention to invoke subsection 15(1) of the LLA.

Decision and Order

70. In 4 days of evidence from the police and community, the Board has heard overwhelming evidence from the police and area residents about the deplorable criminal and anti-social activities taking place within the community as a result of the activities within West Side B.B.Q. Restaurant. The open and blatant drug trafficking within and outside the premises while the owner was present is shocking. Crack cocaine is clearly one of the most addictive drugs trafficked today. It is debilitating and destructive to users who soon become addicts; an addiction which spawns further criminal activity to try and feed the addiction. The Premises was the source and catalyst for this drug activity. Willful blindness on the part of the Licensee and service staff is a mild description for an owner who it appears sacrificed law, order, and human safety for money.

71. The stories told by the residents from the community are sad. They have become prisoners in their homes, afraid or reluctant to venture into the area because of the Premises. To a person, citizens and police have stated that the activities of the Premises have undermined the ability of the community to attract new legitimate businesses to prosper. They have stated that revocation of the Premises’ liquor licence could breathe new life into the area.

72. Based on all the evidence, the Board FINDS a liquor licence for West Side B.B.Q. Restaurant at 853A Bloor Street West is not in the public interest pursuant to subsection 6(2)(h) of the LLA.

73. The Board further FINDS the evidence establishes, on a balance of probabilities, the Licensee violated the provisions of the LLA and O.Reg. contained in the Notice of Proposal dated November 14, 2006 as follows:

a) A drunken patron was found in the licensed premises contrary to subsection 45(1) of the O. Reg.

b) Licence holder kept for sale liquor not purchased under licence contrary to subsection 31(1)(c) of the O. Reg.

c) Licence holder permitted liquor other than liquor purchased by the licence holder under licence to be brought into the licensed premises contrary to subsection 33(1) of the O. Reg.

74. With regard to the Supplementary Notice of Proposal to revoke a licence dated January 12, 2007, the Board FINDS drunken patrons were in the licensed premises on October 13 and 14, 2006, contrary to subsection 45(1) of the O. Reg.

75. With regard to the Supplementary Notice of Proposal dated March 20, 2007, the Board FINDS that, on November 30, 2006, a patron brought liquor not purchased under licence onto the licensed premises contrary to section 33(1) of the O. Reg. and permitted drunkenness contrary to subsection 45(1) of the O. Reg. Further, on January 8 and 9, 2007, crack cocaine was trafficked on premises contrary to subsection 45(2) of the O. Reg.

76. Based on all of the above, the Board ordered the immediate REVOCATION of liquor licence number 200621, issued to 1475750 Ontario Ltd. operating as West Side BBQ Restaurant, 853A Bloor Street West, Toronto, Ontario.

DATED AT TORONTO THIS 8^th DAY OF AUGUST , 2007.

ALEX MCCAULEY, BOARD MEMBER BRIAN J. FORD, BOARD MEMBER

AM/BJF/mw