Registrar, Alcohol and Gaming Commission Ontario v. 1505117 Ontario Inc., 2007 CanLII 41547

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-

1505117 Ontario Inc. O/A Via Egnatia Restaurant and Bar Licensee

DECISION

Panel: Patricia McQuaid, Vice-Chair Eleanor Meslin, Member

Decision Date: August 27, 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 ) Phillip Morris, Representative 1505117 Ontario Inc., Licensee ) Joseph Bloomenfeld, Representative

Authorities

Mikos Hotels Limited v. Registrar of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario, 2007 CanLII 16634 (ON S.C.D.C.) (Royal Hotel)

Allegations

1. A hearing into a Notice of Proposal (NOP) dated May 25, 2006 and a Supplementary Notice of Proposal (SNOP) dated April 12, 2007 to revoke the liquor licence 809515 of 1505117 Ontario Inc. operating as VIA EGNATIA RESTAURANT & BAR, 395 Keele St., Toronto, Ontario, M6P 2K9 (the “Premises”), licence number 809515, on the basis of alleged violations of section 6(2)(d), and subsections 16(1), 45(1), 45(2) of the Liquor Licence Act (LLA), subsections 29, 33(1), 20(1), 45(1) and 45(2) of Ontario Regulation 719/90 (O.Reg.), was held on July 16, 17 and 18, 2007 in the City of Toronto.

Decision

2. The Licensee has admitted to violations on January 14, 2007 of subsections 33(1) and 20(1) of O. Reg. 719/90 and the Board so finds.

3. The Board also finds violations under subsection 45(1) of O. Reg. 719/90 and section 6(2)(d) of the LLA.

4. The Registrar asked to withdraw all allegations regarding March 5, 2006. The Board accepted the withdrawal.

5. The Board dismisses the alleged violations under subsection 16(1) of the LLA.

Preliminary Matters

6. Mr. Bloomenfeld requested an order excluding witnesses, agreed to by Mr. Morris and the Board so ordered.

7. Mr. Bloomenfeld asked that the Licensee’s husband, Nesim Gashi, be permitted to remain to give instructions. Since he was going to trial on criminal matters relating to the incident in question, in April, 2008, Mr. Bloomenfeld would probably not be calling him. Mr. Morris did not consent, indicating that Mr. Gashi was present during the incident and could be called as a witness by Mr. Bloomenfeld.

8. On the basis that Mr. Bloomenfeld could not guarantee that Mr. Gashi would not be called, the Board ordered him excluded.

9. Mr. Bloomenfeld raised objections to the use of drug squad officers’ notes to refresh their memories, on the basis that the notes were kept in binders with removable pages, were not turned over daily to their supervisors to be reviewed and were kept by the officers. He submitted that this was not proper police protocol. He raised these objections regarding the testimony of Officers James Birrell, Douglas Barnard, Douglas Rose, Ben Dury, Jason Macgregor and Michael Palermo.

10. Mr. Morris pointed out that the Court, at the preliminary inquiry, permitted the use of the notes in the binder format. The witnesses testified concerning the protocol used by the drug squad. During a raid there was a central note-taker keeping track of all the data to assist the officers when they made their notes, shortly after the incident. The officer’s notes were reviewed, usually weekly, by their supervisors and the officers were responsible for keeping them in a safe, locked location.

11. In its ruling, the Board noted that this was an administrative law process. The Statutory Powers Procedure Act (SPPA) provides that the rules of evidence in the Courts need not be strictly followed by tribunals, so long as the process is fair. Section 15 of the SPPA provides that a tribunal may admit evidence at a hearing, whether or not it would be admissible as evidence in a Court. However, a Court, in this case, at the preliminary inquiry, did accept the witnesses’ notes in notebook format.

12. Whether there are express police protocols regarding notes in court, this is not a criminal court. The Board hears and weighs all the evidence. The police officers are witnesses before this tribunal and the Board will decide what weight will be given to the testimony that relies on their notes. If there are reasons to give less weight to a witness, that could likely be brought out in cross-examination. The Board draws no conclusions until the cross-examinations have been heard.

13. Therefore, the Board allowed the witnesses to use their binder notes to refresh their memories.

Registrar’s Evidence

14. Jim Burrell is an Officer with the Toronto Police Service, attached to the drug squad. He attended at the premises on September 14, 2005 at 10:30 p.m., in plainclothes with Detectives Higgins, Foley and Officers Dury, Tresuch, Williams and Nicole. They were assigned to search the basement.

15. On entering, he proceeded past the service bar and led the team downstairs. He noted the layout – an open area with couches and chairs, a curtained-off area piled with tables, chairs and an office. There were no people. He returned upstairs to report and by then all the people in the bar were secured at tables. He then returned to the basement to search it for guns.

16. He searched the office area with Officer Higgins. There was a desk, chair, bookcases, shelving and the top of a pool table leaning against the desk. In the bottom drawer of the desk, under a folder, he found a black, semi-automatic handgun. It was a Colt MKID Series 80. Where the serial number should have been were drill marks obliterating it. There were no bullets in the gun, but there was a magazine, with 5 bullets, beside the gun. He retained the gun and magazine and later turned them over to Detective Constable Kay.

17. He also found a number of documents in the desk drawers:

• 2 London Life policies in the name of Nesim Gashi;

• an Equitable Trust Co. financial gift letter in the name of Liri Gashi;

• a Food Safety Inspection Report (Exhibit #1) dated September 14, 2007 for Via Egnatia;

• a Toronto Dominion Bank Statement (Exhibit #2);

• tickets to a Police Association show (Exhibit #3) in the name of Neff Gashi, dated July 14, 2005; and

• 6 photos (Exhibit #4) of men in fatigues, holding weapons.

18. Officer Burrell retained all the documents and later that night turned them over to Det. Const. Kay at 11 Division, where he completed his notes.

19. Mr. Bloomenfeld asked why the Officers failed to mark the items seized and not make any photocopies of those presented to the Board. Officer Burrell stated that this was not the practice in the drug squad. Mr. Bloomenfeld objected to the Exhibits but the Board accepted them as evidence, indicating that they would be given appropriate weight in light of all the evidence.

20. In response to Mr. Bloomenfeld’s questions, Officer Burrell stated that at the briefing on the search warrant before the search, the officers were informed that there were three targets:

Fahri Liri, Nesim Gashi and Neff Gashi. The search was for guns and drugs.

21. Officer Burrell indicated that there was no name on the office door, it was closed but not locked. When he found the gun and magazine, he handled them without gloves, boxed them and, with the documents he had found, turned them over to Det. Const. Kay at 11 Division at 12:40 a.m.

22. He did not speak to any of the targets and didn’t know if anyone asked Liri Gashi about the gun.

23. Douglas Barnard, a Det. Const. with Toronto Police Service, attended a briefing on the search warrant for the premises, as Team Leader of Team #1. He arrived at the premises at 10:30 p.m. in plainclothes. He oversaw the actions of his team.

24. He observed a plastic container, which looked to him to be fashioned into a holster, attached under the service bar, under the counter, through his search of the bar area. The object could not been seen by patrons or staff. It was only revealed through the search.

25. Const. Burrell advised him about finding a gun in the basement and showed it to him.

26. He was advised of another gun, a 45 calibre pistol found upstairs in one of the apartments.

27. He was also shown a small amount of cocaine that had been found on a patron, named Mikullovici in the premises.

28. Later, he spoke with Nesim Gashi who said “Sir, the office is mine, I don’t have the bar”. He then pointed to Mr. Mikullovici and said “he runs the place, but he hasn’t paid.” Det. Barnard asked him if anyone else had access to the office and Mr. Gashi replied, “Just me, I changed the locks”. Det. Barnard then asked him if he knew a gun had been found there and Mr. Gashi responded “Can you get my black book from my wife, I have some numbers I need, I work with CSIS”. Det. Barnard then went upstairs and got the book from Liri Gashi and gave it to Nesim Gashi. When he asked Mr. Gashi who owned the building, he was told “my wife and me”.

29. At 12:30 a.m., he returned to 11 Division to process the charges. The documents were put in a tamper-proof bag and a property receipt was attached to it. He indicated that he did not sign the documents and did not know of any requirements to do so.

30. In response to Mr. Bloomenfeld’s questions, Det. Barnard stated he did not have the “holster” or a picture of it at the hearing and did not see a gun in it.

31. Det. Barnard outlined the procedure for evidence handling. In a large search, a central exhibits officer attends to receive any objects found by other team members, marks each piece of property with an “N” number and puts the accused’s name on each case.

32. To Mr. Bloomenfeld’s questions regarding the conversation with Nesim Gashi, the Detective stated that Mr. Gashi initiated the conversation and was very forthright. Det. Barnard made notes in his binder at the time. He felt that Mr. Gashi wanted to give the impression that only he had access to the office. When he raised the gun issue, Mr. Gashi changed the subject and Det. Barnard did not pursue the issue of the gun. Mr. Gashi did not say that he knew nothing about the gun.

33. Douglas Rose was a Constable at the time with the drug squad. He attended the search warrant briefing given by Det. Frank Mancuso. He was a member of Team 4 and was to detain anyone in the bar.

34. He detained a male patron, Kemajl Mikullovici, at the service bar, with a home address of 395 Keele St., the same as the bar. The officer handcuffed him and searched him. In his wallet was a clear plastic bag containing a substance that looked like cocaine, $300.00 U.S. and $445.00 CDN. He turned the items over to Det. Const. Kay. He later learned that the contents of the bag tested as cocaine.

35. Constable Rose was told by Officer Aselin that a handgun had been found. He advised Mr. Mikullovici about the gun and about his right to counsel.

36. In response to Mr. Bloomenfeld’s questions, Const. Rose stated he had not seen the search warrant nor been given any target names. His only dealings were with Mr. Mikullovici. The other patrons were being dealt with by other officers.

37. Ben Dury is a Constable with the drug squad. He attended the briefing and then the premises, on September 14, 2005 in plainclothes. He first searched the basement for people. Finding no one, he was told to search the upstairs apartments. Entry was from the outside of the building. There were 2 apartments on the 2nd floor, each with 2 stories.

38. In the first apartment, there was a woman in the kitchen and 2 children on the 2nd floor of the apartment. No guns were found in the apartment or in the upper floor fire exit hallway.

39. On searching the 2nd apartment, in the kitchen in one of the cabinet drawers he found a white plastic shopping bag with a silver handgun and an ammunition magazine inside. He also found a “deck’ of lined paper 1 inch by 1 inch with an envelope that appeared to contain cocaine and a digital palm scale in a case, commonly used for weighing drugs. He found numerous documents in the name of Kemajl Mikullovici, including a Canadian citizenship card and photos matching the male on the citizenship card identified as Mr. Mikullovici.

40. There was no food in the fridge and no pots or pans in the kitchen. Men’s clothing was found in the front hall closet.

41. Const. Dury left at midnight, returned to 11 Division, made copies of the documents and turned all the property over to Det. Const. Kay. He was later told the content of the envelope contained cocaine.

42. In response to Board questions, Const. Dury stated he did not know whose apartments he was entering and that there was no access to the apartments from the licensed premises.

43. Jason Macgregor is a Detective Constable with the Toronto Police Services drug squad. He attended the premises as part of search Team #4 on September 14, 2005. He detained patrons on the patio and searched the kitchen and bar areas. He seized a number of documents from the pass-through shelf on the bar (Ex. #6 A-F).

44. When Mr. Morris was asked by the Board to explain the relevance of Exhibits 6 A, C, D and F, he indicated he would deal with them in his submission.

45. Det. Const. Macgregor stated that all the seized documents were turned over to Det. Const. Kay at 11 Division. He was not cross-examined.

46. Michael Palermo is a Constable with Toronto Police Services and was on the drug squad at the time of the search. He was in plainclothes with a vest and gun. He secured the bar area and conducted a search of the bar. He described the bar as L-shaped with a hinged entry ledge. The bar had a lower ledge and counter top. He found a number of documents (Ex. 7 A-E) on the lower ledge:

7A – Liquor Licence #809515, taped to the ledge

7B - Health Card Renewal Form for Sulejamin Gashi

7C – Toronto Water Bill for Liri Gashi

7D – Municipal Standards & Licensing Certificate # L16936 (copy illegible) and a Toronto Urban Development Services Licence # B71-3239451, issued to 1505117 Ontario Inc.

7E – Smart Serve Certificate for Ness Gashi at Via Egnatia Restaurant and a Vendor Permit from the Ministry of Finance for Via Egnatia, both were taped to the ledge

47. While searching for any guns under the counter top, he found a piece of plywood 1 foot x 3 feet attached to the bottom of the bar, under the counter that hinged upward. On the plywood was a plastic Ajax container fixed to it, with cut-outs in 3 places and funnel-shaped. In order to seize this item, he ripped it from the bar. It did not come off easily.

48. At this point, Mr. Morris produced the item described, which Const. Palermo identified. Since it is evidence in a criminal trial, Mr. Morris informed the Board that it could not be kept as an exhibit at this hearing.

49. The Officer stated that, in his experience in examining guns and holsters, this container looked like it could hold a gun. Mr. Bloomenfeld objected to this opinion asking that it be given no weight. The Board noted his objection but allowed the evidence to be given.

50. To Mr. Bloomenfeld’s questions regarding the documents, the Officer responded that he made no identifying markings on the documents.

51. Officer Palermo also stated that he did not put an identifying mark on the plywood item, had no idea how long it had been in place and did not know if anything had ever been in the container.

52. Devin Sookdeo is a Liquor Licence Inspector. He attended at the premises on January 14, 2007 at 12:49 a.m. with Officers Rousselle, Braund and Harnett. His testimony was consistent with the testimony of Sgt. Harnett regarding the free beer given to 2 males and the gift box of Canadian Club on the shelf, including the manager, Potito Paccione’s admission. He advised Mr. Paccione that only alcohol purchased on licence could be served, and alcohol consumed on the premises must be paid for, and that he would be reporting the violations.

53. In response to Mr. Bloomenfeld’s questions, the Inspector stated that there were no circumstances where licensees could give patrons free alcohol. He did not know if a licensee could purchase a drink for a patron.

54. Bob Harnett was a uniformed Sergeant, attended the premises on January 17, 2007 at 12:50 a.m. with Inspector Sookdeo and Officers Rousselle and Braund to do a routine liquor inspection.

55. He observed two males drinking from Molson Export bottles. The manager Potito Paccione (Tito) indicated that the bar was closed but he had given the beer to the men for free. They each had 2 beers. This was confirmed by the two males.

56. Sgt. Harnett also observed a gift pack box of Canadian Club with 2 glasses attached, on the shelf behind the bar where bottles of liquor were displayed.

57. In response to Mr. Bloomenfeld’s questions, the Sergeant stated he did not take the names of the 2 males and that the gift box was sealed.

58. Sgt. Harnett indicated that Mr. Paccione was charged with serving free alcohol and having liquor on the premises not purchased under licence.

Licensee’s Witnesses

59. Mr. Bloomenfeld elected not to call any witnesses.

Registrar’s Submissions

60. Mr. Morris advised that he wished to withdraw the allegations regarding subsections 45(1) and 45(2) of the LLA and subsections 29 and 45 (1) of O. Reg. 719/90, relating to March 5, 2006.

61. Mr. Morris addressed the question of whether the basement office was a part of the licensed premises, such that it would be subject to the LLA or was Mr. Gashi’s private office. He submitted that entry to the office was from inside the bar and the office was not locked when the search took place. In addition, the Food Safety Inspector Report (Ex #1) for Via Egnatia was in a desk drawer, as were personal items of both Mr. Gashi and his wife. Taking all this into account, Mr. Morris submitted that the office was jointly used by Mr. Gasi and his wife and was a part of the premises.

62. Both Liri and Nesim Gashi own the building. He noted that Mr. Bloomenfeld had requested that Mr. Gashi be allowed to remain in the hearing to give instructions even though Mrs. Gashi was present. Mr. and Mrs. Gashi appeared to work together as a team.

63. He pointed out that the Licensee, Liri Gashi, did not testify to correct any misconceptions, or speak to the ownership of the gun, even though her licence was at issue.

64. Mr. Morris submitted that, following the decision in Royal Hotel, the office would be part of the premises, allowing a finding under subsection 45(1) of O.Reg. 719/90 regarding the gun.

65. Alternatively, if the Board does not accept the application of the Court decision in Royal Hotel as it relates to this premise, then he asks for a finding of past conduct under 6(2)(d) or a finding under both subsection 6(2)(d) of the LLA and subsection 45(1) of O. Reg. 719/90.

66. Additional evidence of the linkage between Nesim Gashi and the bar is his Smart Serve certificate found taped to the bar.

67. Regarding the plywood item found under the bar, Mr. Morris questions what else could the Ajax bottle be, but a holster for a gun. The reasonable inference, on a balance of probabilities, is that this was a holster for a gun that had been situated in a secretive location. Given its location, the Licensee knew, or ought to have known, about it. This is another reason for findings under subsections 6(2)(d) and 45(1).

68. Regarding the upstairs apartment, he points out that there is some doubt about its use as a residence – no pots or pans, no food in the fridge. A gun and “deck” of cocaine were found on the premises, allowing a reasonable inference that the apartment was used for trafficking.

69. Because documents were found in the apartment relating to Mr. Mikullovici, it is reasonable to believe that the apartment was Mr. Mikullovici’s. Additionally, he was found on the premises with cocaine. Mr. Gashi’s comments to the police, that he “doesn’t have the bar” and that “Mikullovici runs the place but hasn’t paid”, suggests that Mr. Mikullovici was either an employee or a manager. In either case, the Licensee is responsible when either an employee or a patron is found in the bar with drugs under subsection 45(2) of O. Reg.719/90.

70. Mr. Morris points out that some of the documents found on the premises look like debt documents. Coupling that with the cocaine, he asks whether that is a reason to have a gun on the premises. These matters taken together should give the Board reasons to be concerned about what is going on at the premises in relation to subsections 6(2)(d) and 45(1).

71. Regarding January 14, 2007, the gift pack was not purchased on licence and should be a violation under subsection 33(1) of O.Reg. 719/90. In addition, the free drinks given to patrons and admitted to by the manager are violations under subsection 20(1) of O.Reg. 719/90.

72. In response to the Board’s question, Mr. Morris indicated he was not asking for a finding regarding the gun in the apartment.

Licensee’s Submissions

73. Mr. Bloomenfeld admits that there were violations of subsection 33(1) and subsection 20(1) of O.Reg.719/90 regarding the gift pack and the free drinks.

74. He pointed out that Mr. Nesim Gashi had a supervisory role in the restaurant, but is not a director, officer or shareholder of the numbered corporation of the licensed establishment. There is no evidence that he was either a manager or an employee.

75. The liquor licence does not designate the basement as part of the premises, however it could be viewed as such. Although the Registrar’s evidence says the entrance to the basement was through the premises, there was no evidence of another stairway from outside the licensed premises through which it could be accessed. Regarding the Royal Hotel decision, the drugs, in that case, were in a dressing room that could not be accessed from outside the licensed premises and was an integral part of the premises. The same relationship with the office does not exist here.

76. Mr. Gashi’s statement to police regarding the locks was not that he kept the office locked; only that he had changed the locks. This could mean that he was creating a separation between the office and the restaurant.

77. The Registrar submitted that because Mr. and Mrs. Gashi own the building together, they work together. Joint ownership of the building does not relate to the restaurant.

78. Regarding the handgun found in the office, there was no evidence that the gun was illegal. The Licensee concedes that the serial number was tampered with, but there was no evidence that Mr. Gashi was not entitled to have a gun and there was no evidence regarding a gun licence.

79. The Registrar pointed out that when Mr. Gashi was asked about the gun, he changed the subject. However, the officer testified that Mr. Gashi had been very cooperative with police and, yet, he did not ask any follow-up questions about the gun.

80. The Registrar questions why Mrs. Gashi did not testify. Although she is not a compellable witness against her husband in criminal court, it does not mean her evidence and any cross-examination here would not be admissible in a court.

81. The Smart Serve certificate found was in the name of Ness Gashi, not Nesim Gashi and no evidence was given that they are the same person.

82. Regarding the Ajax bottle being a holster, the shape may be similar, but there is no evidence of how long it had been there and no gun or pictures were produced at the hearing. It is speculation that it was set up to hold a gun that could be quickly retrieved. There was no indication that it could have held either gun found on September 14, 2005.

83. In regard to the 2nd floor apartment where a gun and cocaine were found, the Registrar paints a picture that the location was used for trafficking. This is pure speculation. There was no expert evidence regarding trafficking, and the Board should disregard this submission.

84. The only evidence that Mr. Mikullovici was more than a customer is Officer Barnard’s testimony that Mr. Gashi said that Mr. Mikullovici had the bar but hadn’t paid. No questions were asked about the meaning and there was no evidence that Mr. Mikullovici had any authority over the bar.

85. No weight should be given to the Registrar’s assertion that, since Mr. Mikullovici had drugs in his possession as a patron, the Licensee should be on guard. The Licensee could not have known about the drugs in Mr. Mikullovici’s wallet.

86. Regarding the “debt” list possibly relating to drugs, there was no evidence proving this allegation.

87. Mr. Bloomenfeld submitted that there was no evidence that Mr. Gashi had a beneficial interest in the restaurant or that he occupied a managerial position.

88. There may be circumstances in which Mrs. Gashi could be held responsible if she had testified and denied knowledge of the gun and cocaine. But, since there is nothing to rely on that the office was part of the premises, then she cannot be held responsible for a gun in a room that is not connected to the premises.

Reply Submissions

89. The Registrar does not have to establish that Nesim Gashi had control of the premises.

90. The liquor licence only lists areas for the sale of liquor, other areas are not listed.

91. Had the gun not been found in the office but elsewhere in the basement, as long as it was in the control of the Licensee, that is sufficient.

92. Questions for the Board are: was there a gun on the premises, was there a holster, were these things that the Licensee ought to have been aware of, if so, is she responsible for them?

Reasons

93. The Board has carefully considered the evidence and the submissions.

94. The Board accepts the evidence of Officer Burrell that he found a gun and an ammunition magazine in a drawer in the office and also a number of documents, including a Food Safety Inspection Report for Via Egnatia Restaurant and Bar.

95. Although a gun and cocaine were found in one of the upstairs apartments, along with some documents, there is no evidence directly linking the apartment to the premises. Entry to the upstairs apartments is from a door outside on the street. Mr. Mikullovici may have been the tenant, but other than Mr. Gashi’s statement to Officer Barnard that “he runs the place, but he hasn’t paid”, this is not definitive evidence that Mr. Mikullovici is either a manager or employee.

96. Regarding the drugs found in Mr. Mikullovici’s wallet, the Board does not believe that the Licensee should know or ought to have known that a patron, such as Mr. Mikullovici, had drugs in his wallet, when there was no other indication that he was involved with drugs on the premises.

97. Turning to the results of the police search of the service bar on September 14, 2005, the Board accepts Officer Harnett’s evidence that a piece of plywood with a plastic Ajax bottle affixed to it was found, attached, under the bar. The Board notes the testimony of both Det. Palmer and of Det. Barnard that the bottle appeared to be fashioned into a holster for holding a gun. There was no evidence from the Licensee that it was anything else. The place where it was located, the hinged access to it all supports this reasoning. In addition, the Board viewed the plywood board with the plastic bottle attached to it and, on its own observation, the Board concluded that it was more probable than not that the bottle was designed to hold a gun and nothing else. The fact that there was no gun in it at the time or that no one knows how long it had been there is irrelevant. What is relevant is that the Licensee knew or should have known that it was in the bar and questioned its presence.

98. The existence and need for a holster under the bar raises very serious concerns. Therefore, the Board FINDS a violation of subsection 45(1) of O.Reg. 719/90, with respect to the holster.

99. The issue here is whether the office is part of the licensed premises. The office contained documents relating to the premises. The door was unlocked when police raided the premises. There was no name on the door. Access to the office was by a staircase from inside the bar. The fact that Nesim Gashi indicated that he had changed the locks on the office door does not establish, on a balance of probabilities, that the office was for his exclusive use and not part of the premises. For the above reasons, the Board finds the office to be part of the licensed premises.

100. However, the presence of the gun in the office does not fall within the gamut of disorderly conduct within the meaning of subsection 45(1). The issue here is a more serious one. There was no dispute that the gun’s serial number had been erased. The removal of that serial number is strongly suggestive of illegality. No evidence having been called to counter that very reasonable suggestion, the Board is compelled to draw a negative inference from the failure of anyone to testify to that issue, on behalf of the Licensee, or to produce a gun registration or certificate.

101. The presence and potential for use of the gun found in the office in and of itself indicates that the past/present conduct of the Licensee, Liri Gashi, affords reasonable grounds for the belief that the corporation’s business will not be carried out in accordance with the law and with integrity and honesty. Even without the holster, which suggests that a gun might be used or available at the service bar, the fact that an illegal handgun was found on the premises is sufficient to make a finding under the Act.

102. Therefore, the Board FINDS a violation of subsection 6(2)(d) of the LLA.

103. With respect to the allegation under subsection 16(1) of the LLA, since no evidence was presented by the Registrar, the Board dismisses the allegation.

104. Having made the above findings, the Board invites written submissions on disposition from the respective parties. Registrar’s Representative shall serve and file written submissions in fourteen (14) days from the date of this decision. Licensee’s representative shall have seven (7) days thereafter to serve and file a written response. Registrar’s representative shall have an additional three (3) days to serve and file a reply, if any.

DATED AT TORONTO THIS 27th DAY OF AUGUST, 2007.

ELEANOR MESLIN, BOARD MEMBER PATRICIA MCQUAID, VICE-CHAIR

EM/mw