Registrar, Alcohol and Gaming Commission Ontario v. 6161251 Canada Inc. O/A Shot House Pub, 2007 CanLII 58245

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-

6161251 Canada Inc. O/A Shot House Pub

Licensee

______________________________________________________________________

DECISION

______________________________________________________________________

Panel: Beryl Ford, Board Member Kirsti Hunt, Vice-Chair

Decision Date: December 7, 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 ) Joyce Taylor, Representative 6161251 Canada Inc., Licensee ) Ronald Lachmansingh, Representative

Authorities

R. v Royal Canadian Legion, Ontario Court of Appeal, June 29, 1971 Remington Restaurant, [ 2006] O.A.G.C.D. No. 53 R. v Central House (Sault Ste Marie) Ltd., Ontario District Court, October 26, 1972 Club Energy, [1995] O.L.L.B.D. No.291 Ortega v 1005640 Ontario Inc., Ontario Superior Court of Justice, March 18, 2002 Carey’s Restaurant, June 19, 2000 Shooter’s 222 Restaurant Ltd. and the Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario, released November 29, 2004 473954 Ontario Ltd. v. Ontario (Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming), [2001] O.J. No. 5315 Gordon Capital Corp. v. Ontario (Securities Commission)(Ont. Div. Ct.), [1991 O.J. No. 934 R v. Wigglesworth, 1987 CanLII 41 (SCC), [1987] 2 S.C.R. 541, [1987] S.C.J. No 71 Tara Inn, [2005] O.A.G.C.D. No.489 Commercial Tavern,[2006] O.A.G.C.D. No.580 Sand Bar, [1999] O.A.G.C.D. No. 64 (QL)

Allegations

1. A hearing into a Notice of Proposal dated March 14, 2007 alleging violations of subsection 45(1) of Ontario Regulation 719/90 (“O.Reg.”) under the Liquor Licence Act by 6161251 Canada Inc. operating as SHOT HOUSE PUB, liquor licence number 802270, located at 1880 Kennedy Road, Scarborough, Ontario, M1P 2L8. The hearing was held in Toronto on June 28 and September 11, 2007.

Preliminary matters

2. The Board ordered the exclusion of witnesses on agreement of the parties.

3. Ms. Noella Shan was sworn in as interpreter for Mr. Thirumavukaravasu Balasubramaniam who indicated that he uses Mr. Bala. (“Mr. Bala”).

Evidence for the Registrar

Dec 10, 2006

4. Det. Cst. Richard Schoch testified that he and his partner, Cst. Glenn Pitters, were in plain clothes on December 10, 2006 investigating an unrelated matter when he observed a blond female, later identified as Sandy O’Toole, conversing with a gentleman, later identified as Yagannayagam Kanapatchippillai known to Mr. Bala as Mr. Yaga (“Mr.Yaga”) in front of the Shot House Pub around 9:30 p.m. She asked him several times for payment for a beer and a shot. Mr. Yaga indicated that he didn’t understand but finally said that he had paid.

5. On observing the officers, Ms. O’Toole told Mr. Yaga not to worry about the tab and walked back into the Shot House Pub. Mr. Yaga walked northward and entered a variety store. The officer observed he had glossy eyes and, as he walked away, had an odd gait and was staggering and unsteady on his feet.

6. The officers entered the Shot House Pub and found the bartender, Ms. O’Toole, at the service bar at the back of the premises. She said that Mr. Yaga had been in the bar, she was unaware that he was intoxicated and she had served him one beer and a shot. She said that she realized who they were when she told Mr. Yaga outside not to worry about the payment.

7. The husband of the licence holder, Mr. Bala, was seated with several patrons at a table near the windows at the front of the establishment. Ms. O’Toole asked him to come to the service bar. While they were speaking, Mr. Yaga re-entered the bar. He had a stagger and was still unsteady on his feet and had glossy eyes. Ms. O’Toole was taken off guard and did nothing to remove him from the premises.

8. The officer attempted to get Mr. Yaga to provide his identification. He could smell alcohol on his breath. Mr. Bala spoke to Mr. Yaga in what the officer assumed was Tamil. The officer saw nothing to indicate that Mr. Yaga was being asked to leave. However, he could not understand what was being said. The officer did not know how much English Mr. Yaga could speak although he told Ms. O’Toole in broken English outside that he had paid and when asked in English for payment while inside he paid with a $10 bill.

9. The officer did not see any alcohol served to Mr. Yaga in the premises. He agreed that it is possible that a person, despite the signs exhibited by Mr. Yaga, is not intoxicated but added that it is unlikely.

10. Cst. Glenn Pitters corroborated his partner’s evidence regarding the discussion between Mr. Yaga and Ms. O’Toole outside. He added that Mr. Yaga walked slowly in a northerly direction along the plaza. He was swaying back and forth and was unsteady on his feet. He did not see where he went.

11. Upon entering the Shot House Pub, he identified himself as a plain clothes officer to Ms. O’Toole who explained that Mr. Yaga had left without paying his tab for a beer and a shot and he owed her $10. She said she recognized them outside because they looked like police officers. On request, she produced the liquor licence. She said she was in charge of the bar and added that the owner’s husband, Mr. Bala, was sitting at the table at the front of the establishment.

12. Mr. Bala came to the service bar and identified himself. The officer described what he had observed outside.

13. During their conversation, Mr. Yaga re-entered the bar and walked, swaying back and forth, to the vegetable platters available to patrons during this customer appreciation night. The officer made a joke that he was back for more carrot sticks. Neither Mr. Bala nor Ms. O’Toole did anything about him.

14. Either he or Mr. Bala said something to Mr. Yaga who came to the service bar. The officer asked him for identification and observed that he had glossy eyes and a smell of alcohol on his breath. Mr. Yaga did not appear to understand the officers so Mr. Bala was asked to translate. Mr. Bala asked him for his driver’s licence. Mr. Yaga had trouble getting his wallet out of his pocket. It took numerous tries for him to get the licence out of a pouch in the wallet. He also had trouble getting a $10 bill out of his wallet to pay his tab.

15. The officer asked Mr. Bala to ask Mr. Yaga how much he had to drink prior to coming to Shot House Pub. Mr. Yaga replied that he had Hennessey beer at home which was just around the corner from Shot House Pub. He was mixing in some English while speaking and the officer noted that his speech was slurred. He did not indicate how much he had to drink at home.

16. The officer cautioned Mr. Bala and Ms. O’Toole about serving to intoxication and advised them that charges were pending. At this point, Ms. O’Toole said, “Look what you did. It’s your fault if we lose our licence. Get out.” At this point Mr. Yaga started to leave and the officers followed. The bartender had not asked him to leave prior to that.

17. The officer stated that there is another bar, Caribbean Flavor, in the plaza about 8 to 9 stores from Shot House Pub but it was not open. He agreed that it is possible that Mr. Bala asked Mr. Yaga to leave because he did not understand Tamil.

18. On questioning by the Board, the officer explained that when Mr. Yaga re-entered the premises, he was writing down information from Mr. Bala and Cst. Schoch was getting information from Ms. O’Toole.

December 22, 2007

19. Cst. Sean Forrest along with his partner, Cst. Lisa Greif, got a radio call around 1:47 a.m. to attend at the intersection of Ellesmere Rd. and Kennedy Rd. The call came from a male, 45 years old and later identified as Saverio Sorrentino. He was slurring his words, had possibly been drinking and was uncooperative with the call taker. While on route to the location, they received additional information that Mr. Sorrentino said a guy had punched him.

20. They arrived at 1:53 a.m. Traffic officers were on scene and Mr. Sorrentino was in an ambulance. He told the traffic officers that he had been punched in the face while he was outside and had no suspect information. Cst. Forrest noted a strong odour of alcohol when he opened the ambulance doors. Mr. Sorrentino was refusing treatment and uncooperative. Mr. Sorrentino did not want to talk about what happened or the assailant. His speech was slurred, his eyes very glossy and his left eye, where he had been punched, was closed. He was unable to say how he received a large gash on his arm. He kept swearing and yelling about finding his glasses. The glasses were not located.

21. At the hospital, Mr. Sorrentino continued to be uncooperative and caused such a disturbance with his profanity that he was moved from the emergency area to the hall. He had trouble standing up and had to be put on a chair. He kept refusing treatment and wanted to leave. The officer tried to convince him to stay because his injuries were very serious. Because his glasses were missing, there was a concern that he may have had glass in his eye. Because he was intoxicated, he wasn’t feeling much of the pain although the injury appeared to be painful.

22. His partner spoke to staff at the bar who advised him that Mr. Sorrentino was a regular at the premises and had arrived there after work around 11 p.m.

23. Cst. Forrest did not recall any other violent incidents in the area that night. Mr. Sorrentino told him that he was punched and ended up on the ground but couldn’t remember falling. He gave two stories about why he was assaulted. Neither was consistent with the version given to Cst. Greif. He refused to identify his assailant or give a statement. He did say he got punched outside in the parking lot.

24. The officer stated that it was unlikely the eye injuries were from falling. He had no idea how much the victim had to drink. While he did not record his observations about the odour of alcohol in the ambulance or indicia of intoxication in his notes because he was taking information about an assault, he had an independent recollection of these matters. No suspect was apprehended.

25. Cst. Lisa Greif testified that the information from the officers on scene was that the male had been in the Shot House Pub drinking and said something to a female. As he was leaving, he was punched in the left eye.

26. Cst. Greif saw Mr. Sorrentino in the ambulance. He was uncooperative, had a strong odour of alcohol, and slurred speech. The officer concluded that Mr. Sorrentino was impaired. He had a cut on the eyebrow of his left eye.

27. In the Shot House Pub, the officer spoke to an employee, John Mills, who said he was in charge. He knew the victim as “Sammy”, a long time customer, who had arrived around 11:30 p.m. and he had been drinking. The officer understood that as meaning “Sammy” had been drinking at the bar. Mr. Mills said he helped “Sammy” leave. He came back for his jacket and went out again. While “Sammy” was at the bar he made a sexually suggestive comment to a female. The female told another male, the possible assailant. “Sammy” came back inside and said he’d been punched in the face. Mr. Miller did not know where the female and male went. He knew “Sammy” had been transported to hospital.

28. At the hospital Mr. Sorrentino said a male punched him and he lost his glasses. No glasses had been found on scene. He got the cut on his right elbow when he fell to the ground after being punched. He did not know why he was assaulted. He admitted he made a comment about a female dancing inside the premises and that a male then approached him outside and punched him.

29. Mr. Sorrentino was extremely impaired and uncooperative and refused to give a statement. His story became inconsistent and his description of the male and female started changing. He had a strong odour of alcohol on his breath, was staggering, had blood shot eyes and had to lean against the wall and had slurred speech. He was happy one minute and angry the next.

30. The officer added that Mr. Sorrentino did not say he came from Shot House Pub but said he had been punched in the bar and pointed to Shot House Pub. To her knowledge there are no other bars in that direction. She assumed the incident happened pretty soon after Mr. Sorrentino left the bar because the blood on his eye brow was still wet when she arrived. She believed the injury resulted from a punch and not from a fall.

31. Cst. Greif agreed that John Mills never identified “Sammy” as Mr. Sorrentino but he did say that Sammy had left and returned and said he had been punched. Mr. Mills did not see the punch nor did he see the female tell the male about the comment. Mr. Sorrentino did not refer to himself as “Sammy”. Because of what Mr. Mills said, she believed that the female told the male about the comment made to her and the male followed the victim outside and punched him.

32. Because this was an assault investigation, she did not focus on the establishment except for speaking to Mr. Mills. She was not aware of any other establishment being open at that time.

Licensee’s Evidence

33. Mr. Bala gave his testimony through an interpreter. He is the spouse of the owner of Shot House Pub and a manager of the establishment. He described the other businesses in the plaza. The Chinese Hut also serves liquor but the latest he had seen it open was at 1 a.m. on a weekend.

34. Mr. Bala was present on December 10, 2006 and saw Mr. Yaga come in. Mr. Yaga is Sri Lankan and speaks Tamil. He is a slim person about 52 to 55 years old with a hunched body. He can’t walk properly but walks on the outside of his feet. He demonstrated a bow legged walk.

35. Ms. O’Toole served him and he saw Mr. Yaga drink 1 beer and 1 shot while standing at the bar. As Mr. Yaga was going out, Mr. Bala asked him what he was taking about with him and he said food. That night was a customer appreciation holiday and they had finger foods available. Mr. Yaga had carrots sticks and sandwiches on a plate. He noticed nothing unusual about his voice. He did not say anything to Mr. Yaga at that time.

36. After Mr. Yaga left, 2 police officers came in. They went to Ms. O’Toole and asked for the liquor licence. She called him over and the officers asked why Mr. Yaga had been served too much liquor. Mr. Bala told them that Mr. Yaga had only 1 beer and 1 shot. While he was talking to the police officers, Mr. Yaga came back in to pick up some food. He pointed Mr. Yaga out to the officers and told them that he wasn’t drunk. He and Mr. Yaga showed the police officers their ID when asked. There was nothing unusual about Mr. Yaga’s face or his walk or the way he showed his ID.

37. Mr. Yaga had left the first time without paying but he paid for 1 beer and 1 shot before he left the second time after Ms O’Toole asked him to do so. Mr. Yaga arrived the first time around 9:15 to 9:30 p.m. and was in the premises for 35 to 40 minutes. The second time, he was there for 5 to 10 minutes.

38. On cross-examination, Mr. Bala stated that he was sure of the time when Mr. Yaga arrived because as manager he notices the time and he used to write the time in a diary so he would know it. He used to tell his wife and she would write it down. He agreed that his wife was not present on that date.

39. When Mr. Yaga went out the first time, Ms. O’Toole didn’t let him leave but he left through the front door when she went to the patio. Ms. O’Toole did not follow him outside but only went up to the door and then he said to the window to look out. At the time Mr. Bala was sitting in the front part of the bar at a table talking with other patrons. Mr. Yaga was outside for 5 to 10 minutes.

40. Mr. Bala explained that, at the same time that Mr. Yaga went out, the police officers came in. At that time, Ms. O’Toole was at the back behind the service bar. When Mr. Yaga left, she went to the window, didn’t know the people entering were police officers, and then went back to the service bar. He didn’t know if Ms. O’Toole recognized them as police officers.

41. Mr. Yaga came back in 5 to 10 minutes after the police entered. He walked right in, picked up some food and Mr. Bala showed the officers that Mr. Yaga was not drunk. He denied that Mr. Yaga was swaying back and forth, had slurred speech and glossy eyes. He did not smell alcohol on his breath, not the strong drunk smell of a person who is drunk. He agreed that Mr. Yaga had had a beer and a shot. He denied that Mr. Yaga had difficulty getting money and his ID out of his wallet. He had no idea what Mr. Yaga had been doing before arriving at Shot House Pub and didn’t hear him tell the police officers that he had been drinking Hennessey beer at home.

42. He agreed it was Ms. O’Toole’s job to serve liquor. If she had a problem, she would ask him. Neither Ms. O’Toole nor Mr. Mills speak Tamil. He manages the bar for his wife and deals with them in English. He spoke English to the police officers.

43. Mr. Bala was not present on December 22, 2006.

Submissions

44. Ms. Taylor submitted that the licensee permitted a drunken patron on the premises on December 10 and 22, 2006 in breach of subsection 45(1) of the O.Reg. based on the credible evidence of the police officers whose testimony should be preferred to that of Mr. Bala.

45. Mr. Lachmansingh submitted that the Registrar failed to prove all the elements of subsection 45(1) of the O. Reg. so no findings should be made.

Analysis and Findings

December 10, 2006

46. The issue before the Board is whether the licence holder permitted drunkenness on the licensed premises on December 10, 2006. Det. Schoch and Cst. Pitters both gave detailed and credible evidence of their observations of Mr. Yaga. By contrast, given the many inconsistencies in Mr. Bala’s evidence, the Board does not find his evidence reliable. Mr. Bala’s evidence confirms his ability to converse with the officers and his staff in English. There is no evidence that he did not understand them. The Board is not persuaded that the inconsistencies in his evidence are attributable to him giving evidence through a translator.

47. Although, Mr. Yaga may have only consumed one beer and one shot in the premises, there is evidence that he had been drinking at home before arriving at the premises. Given his condition, it is reasonable to conclude that Mr. Yaga either arrived intoxicated or was near intoxication when he arrived and, having been served the beer and

• the shot, became intoxicated. While the officers did not provide identical descriptors of intoxication, their testimony about Mr. Yaga’s appearance and behaviour is sufficient to establish, on a balance of probabilities, that Mr. Yaga was drunk. Further, Ms. O’Toole’s outburst when told that charges were pending, reinforces this conclusion. If Mr. Yaga had been sober, there would have been no reason for her to berate him.

48. The licensee submitted that there is no evidence that Mr. Yaga became intoxicated in the premises because he only had a beer and a shot. The Board agrees with the Registrar that subsection 45(1) of the O. Reg. states that “a licence holder shall not permit drunkenness and that nothing in the section requires the person to become intoxicated in the premises before a finding of a breach can be made. It is enough that a licensee permit drunkenness within the premises. In 473954 Ontario Ltd (Wilder’s and the Zoo) the Divisional Court held that drunkenness simpliciter constitutes a breach of the regulation.

49. The Remington Restaurant decision is distinguished because, in that case, there was a lack of evidence to support the allegations. That is not the case here. In Club Energy, there was a finding of permit drunkenness although there was no evidence that the person had been drinking in the premises.

50. Licensee also submits that the registrar must prove each element of subsection 45(1) of the O.Reg. including whether the premises were under the exclusive control of the licence holder and that no evidence has been led on this point. There are no allegations relating to unlicensed areas of the premises so it is not necessary to address the Licensee’s arguments on that point.

51. The Board accepts the Registrar’s submission that a licence holder must have exclusive control of the licensed premises as a precondition of holding a valid license. In this case the licence is held by 6161251 Canada Inc. There is no evidence to suggest that Mrs. Rajaranjani Balasubramaniam, the director, officer and 100% shareholder of the licensee corporation, does not have exclusive control of the premises and a valid license. The license holder is responsible for the licensed premises whether she is present physically in the premises or not.

52. Licensee further submits that there has to be a knowledge element to what occurred (Royal Canadian Legion) and for the licensee to be liable, he/she has to “permit” it to take place (Central House), (Remington Restaurant). Licensee submits further that given the confusing evidence regarding who asked Mr. Yaga to leave, it is not proven that the licensee permitted him to be on premises.

53. Registrar submits that the Board has held on numerous occasions that being drunk on premises is sufficient for a FINDING under subsection 45(1) of the O.Reg. based on the definition of “permit” in the Board’s decision in Sandbar and that due diligence is not a defence as held in the Divisional Court decision in Gordon Capital and Shooters.

54. The Board notes that in the Sandbar decision, that panel of the Board adopted the following definition of “permit”:

Black’s Law Dictionary (5^th^ Edition at p. 1026) defines “permit” as a verb meaning “to suffer, allow, consent, let; to give leave or licence; to acquiesce, by failure to prevent, or to expressly assent or agree to the doing of an act.

The Board notes as being germane to liquor licence matters, and the particular circumstances of this case, one of the above notes definitions or “permit”, namely “to acquiesce, by failure to prevent, ... the doing of an act.

In this case, the evidence undeniably establishes that the licensee permitted prohibited acts by affording the opportunity for, and failing to prevent certain proscribed behaviour.

55. Although past decisions of the Board may be instructive, they are not binding and each panel makes its decision based on the individual circumstances of each case. Given the language of Sand Bar and the absence of a due diligence defence, panels of the Board must consider the point at which a licensee may be found to have “permitted” activity prohibited by the O.Reg. In our view, determining this issue requires the Board to be mindful of the fact that not all establishments in this Province can have a person available at the door at all times to assess the level of sobriety of patrons entering the premises. Therefore, there will be times when a drunken patron does enter a licensed premises. When this happens, the licensee or staff member in the premises should, at the first reasonable opportunity, assess the person and, where the person appears intoxicated, take prompt action to remove that person. The panels in the cases of Commercial Tavern and Tara Inn made no findings of a breach based on prompt and responsible actions taken by the licensee

56. This panel agrees with the position taken in Commercial Tavern decision that:

there is an onus on all Licensees to prevent and deter drunkenness on their premises. The Board also is of the mind that realistic expectations have to be applied to the enforcing of the law. In this case, the intoxicated person came into the Premises and at first blush appeared fine. When it was apparent that this was not the case, shortly after her appearance in the establishment, steps were taken to deal with the matter in a responsible fashion. We find that this is a regrettable situation but was dealt with promptly by the Licensee.

57. Similarly in the Tara Inn decision in which a patron who appeared “odd” was refused service and spontaneously went berserk. He was restrained and police were called, the Board member found that:

regrettable incidents may happen occasionally in a public facility. They must be dealt with in a prompt, safe, and responsible manner by the licensee. The Board considers that the licensee fulfilled its obligation in this regard.

58. In understanding what is meant by reasonable opportunity mentioned above, we note that there are unusual circumstances where the licensee is legitimately prevented from making an assessment and prompt removal. An obvious example is where the Licensee or staff are facilitating an investigation by police or liquor inspectors or dealing with a situation in which the safety of patrons is at risk.

59. Furthermore, if during extreme weather conditions, a licensee permits a drunken patron to remain in the licensed premises in order to prevent them from driving or to wait for safe transport home, the licensee cannot be faulted for exercising a duty of care toward this individual. . However, in these circumstances, the licensee has the responsibility to supervise the patron to ensure that no alcohol is consumed by that patron.

60. In the present case, Mr. Yaga was in the licensed premises on two occasions. The Board has found that Mr Yaga was drunk. Based on the evidence of Mr. Bala, Mr Yaga left the premises the first time without paying his bill while the bartender was on the patio. Mr. Bala did not ask him to leave. No action was taken by staff to remove him. The Board FINDS, in these circumstances, that the licence holder permitted drunkenness in the licensed premises in breach of subsection 45(1) of the O. Reg.

61. Mr. Yaga returned to the premises. At that time, Mr. Bala was engaged in conversation with one police officer and the other officer was speaking to Ms. O’Toole. Neither had an opportunity to prevent the re-entry. A discussion about payment and identification ensued with Mr. Bala acting as interpreter for the officers. It is not reasonable to expect Mr. Bala or Ms. O’Toole to ask Mr. Yaga to leave while he was being questioned by police. In these circumstances, staff was prevented from taking action to remove Mr. Yaga. Therefore, the Board DISMISSES the alleged breach of subsection 45(1) of the O. Reg. respecting Mr. Yaga’s second attendance in the licensed premises.

December 22, 2006

62. There is ample credible evidence from Cst. Forest and Cst. Greif that Mr. Sorrentino, the victim of the assault, was drunk.

63. The Licensee submitted that Mr. Mills did not identify “Sammy” who was in the premises as Mr. Sorrentino. The police officers did not establish that Mr. Sorrentino was “Sammy”. The issue for the Board, then, is whether Mr. Sorrentino was in the licensed premises.

64. The Board is satisfied there is sufficient evidence to establish, on a balance of probabilities that Mr. Sorrentino was in the establishment that evening. Cst. Greif testified that Mr. Sorrentino pointed to Shot House Pub when asked about the assault. There are no other licensed establishments in that direction. Mr. Bala admitted that, to his knowledge, there are no other licensed establishments in the plaza open after 1 am.

65 . Mr. Mills identified the victim as “Sammy” and testified that “Sammy” was in the premises and made a sexually suggestive comment to a female at the bar, left the bar but returned to say that he had been punched in the face. Mr. Sorrentino was consistent in his statements that he had been punched and had made a comment to a female.

66. In the circumstances, given the similarity of the evidence on these essential points and the circumstantial evidence suggesting no other bars were open in the immediate vicinity, there is a reasonable basis for the Board to find, on a balance of probabilities, that Mr. Sorrentino is the patron known to Mr. Mills as “Sammy” and that he was in the Shot House Pub prior to the assault on December 22, 2006. Given his level of intoxication when police arrived at 1:53 a.m., the Board also finds, on a balance of probabilities, that Mr. Sorrentino was drunk in the premises. Therefore, the Board FINDS the Licensee in breach of subsection 45(1) of the O.Reg. on December 22, 2006.

Conclusion

67. Given the findings above, the Board invites written submissions on penalty from the respective parties. The Registrar’s representative shall serve and file her written submissions within seven (7) days of the date of this decision. The licensee’s representative shall have seven (7) days to serve and file his written response. Registrar’s Representative may serve and file any reply within three (3) days of receipt of the licensee’s response. All submissions are to be filed with the Manager of Hearings at the address on the front of this decision.

DATED AT TORONTO THIS 7^th^ DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2007

_____________________________ ______________________________

KIRSTI HUNT, VICE-CHAIR BERYL FORD, BOARD MEMBER

KH/sm