Registrar, Alcohol and Gaming Commission Ontario v. Shangrila Club Service Ltd., 2007 CanLII 58220

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-

Shangrila Club Service Ltd. O/A Club Shangrila Services Licensee

DECISION ON SANCTION

Panel: Dianne Axmith, Board Member Decision Date: December 11, 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 Toll Free in Ontario: 1-800-522-2876 Website: www.agco.on.ca

Appearances

Registrar, Alcohol and Gaming Commission ) Dan Alakas, Representative Shangrila Club Service Ltd., Licensee ) Caesar Wong, Representative

Authorities

Poonam Restaurant, [2007] O.A.G.C.D. No. 134 Azul Restaurant, [2003] O.A.G.C.D. No. 309

1A hearing into a Notice of Proposal number 15428 dated July 10, 2007 to suspend liquor licence number 40396 issued to Shangrila Club Services Ltd. operating as CLUB SHANGRILA SERVICES, 50 Esna Park Drive, Markham, Ontario, L3R 1E1, on the basis of alleged violations of subsection 31(1)(c) and section 33(1) of Ontario Regulation 719/90 (“O.Reg”) made pursuant to the Liquor Licence Act (“LLA”), was held on November 2, 2007 in the City of Toronto.

2In its decision dated November 21, 2007, The Board found the Licensee had violated section 33(1) of the O.Reg. The allegation of a violation of subsection 31(1)(c) was dismissed.

Decision on Sanction

3Submissions from the parties regarding disposition in this matter have been received and reviewed.

4On behalf of the Registrar, Mr. Alakas submits the Board should consider the length of time that the four cases of beer were kept in the premises in order to provide customer service for the Special Occasion Permit holder. Further, he suggests that if Ms. Shiu was unavailable, she should have instructed other staff members to continue to contact the owner of the product and insist on its removal. It is his submission this demonstrates that customer service takes precedence over adherence to the LLA.

5Mr. Alakas cites two previous AGCO decisions, Poonam Restaurant and Azul Restaurant, as precedents for the 7-10 day suspension he seeks. He submits a suspension of this length is necessary “to impact this licensee in order to give effect to the obligations, responsibilities and requirements under the Act”.

6On behalf of the Licensee, Mr. Caesar Kie Fai Wong submits the presence of the off-license product represents an error in judgment on the part of Ms. Shui with no intent for gain or profit to the licence holder and no resultant detriment to any party. He reminds the Board that Ms. Shiu was honest in her testimony and cooperative with the AGCO Inspector and suggests that both the Licence Holder and Ms. Shiu have learned their lesson as a result of the incident and will definitely take a firm stand on future occasions. He submits that a 7-10 day suspension is excessive, harsh, and unwarranted under the circumstances. A strong reprimand is the most appropriate penalty particularly in view of the unblemished record of this establishment.

7In reply, Mr. Alakas submits that it was Ms. Shiu’s decision to elevate customer and business considerations above compliance with the regulations that prompted the Registrar's request for a 7-10 day suspension. Ms. Shiu knew it was wrong to keep the cases of beer on the premises but she also failed to take any steps to address or to mitigate her actions when she failed to follow up with the permit holder. He states that she showed a blatant lack of concern for the law in going away on vacation without making any further arrangements with other staff to ensure removal of the product.

8In considering the appropriate disposition in this matter, I have carefully considered the submissions from both parties. The decisions provided by the Registrar are not helpful. Azul Restaurant was an “agreed”. Poonam Restaurant involved more than a single violation of 33(1) of the O.Reg. In both cases, the penalty was a five day suspension, less than what is sought here. In any event, the Board is not bound by previous decisions and must determine each case on its own merits.

9I appreciate Registrar's argument that the time lag between the expiration of the Special Occasion Permit and the Inspection by Mr. Anderson did span an inordinate amount of time. However, based on Ms. Shiu's very credible testimony about a month long vacation in the intervening weeks, I find this less an example of blatant disregard for the Regulations than a simple oversight. I have also noted the fact that this establishment has an unblemished record despite holding more than 60 Special Occasion events annually. This was clearly an anomaly and not a regular occurrence to store product for a customer.

10I am satisfied that Ms. Shiu and the Licence Holder will make every effort to ensure that this never happens again. I therefore, ORDER, that a letter of reprimand be placed on the Licensee’s file as the most appropriate disposition in these circumstances.