Alcohol & Gaming Commission of Ontario
LIQUOR LICENCE ACT, R.S.O. 1990
In the Matter of: NANCY’S BAR & GRILL 1215 Weston Road Toronto, Ontario M6M 4P7
Licensee: Nancy’s Bar & Grill Inc. Licence Number: 280976
Notice of Proposal: To REVOKE a licence Dated: July 28, 2006
The Proposal alleges that:
(a) contrary to subsection 30(4) of the Liquor Licence Act, the licensee or the licensee’s employee or agent permitted a person who appeared to be under the age of 19 years to have or consume liquor in the licensed premises.
(b) contrary to subsection 41(1) of Ontario Regulation 719/90 under the Liquor Licence Act, the licence holder failed to inspect a piece of identification of a person apparently under the age of 19 years prior to selling or serving liquor to that person.
(c) contrary to subsection 45(1) of Ontario Regulation 719/90 under the Liquor Licence Act (the “O.Reg. 719/90”), the licence holder permitted drunkenness or riotous, quarrelsome, violent or disorderly conduct to occur on the licensed premises or in the areas under the control of the licence holder.
(d) contrary to subsection 30.1(1) under the Liquor Licence Act (“LLA”), the licence holder failed to display the Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder warning sign while selling or supplying liquor or offering to sell or supply liquor.
Hearing: Alcohol & Gaming Commission of Ontario 90 Sheppard Ave. E., 3rd Floor Toronto, Ontario M2N 0A4 January 15, 2007
Presiding
Board Members: Patricia McQuaid, Vice-Chair Alex McCauley, Member
Counsel for the Registrar: Bryna Kaplan Agent for the Licensee: Ed Blaha
Attendance: Nancy Iannarella, principal of the corporate licensee PC Kaszyca, Toronto Police Service Amanda Higuera, AGCO Liquor Inspector Lucy Iannarella, for the licensee Lorelei Taylor, for the licensee
DECISION ON SANCTION
A hearing of the Alcohol & Gaming Commission of Ontario (“AGCO”) was convened on January 15, 2007 pursuant to a Notice of Proposal dated July 28, 2006 to revoke a licence issued to Nancy’s Bar & Grill Inc. for premises operating as Nancy’s Bar & Grill, 1215 Weston Road, Toronto, Ontario, M6M 4P7, licence number 280976.
In its decision dated January 24, 2007, the Board made one finding, namely a breach of subsection 30.1 (1) under the LLA. The evidence suggested, however, that the licensee obtained the “Sandy’s Law” poster and put it up, after its absence was noted by Inspector Higuera.
The Board requested written submissions on sanction from Registrar’s counsel and Licensee’s agent. In her submissions, Ms. Kaplan states that the regulation requiring the warning sign had been in effect for approximately one year prior to the date in question. Further, this licensee has had a history of violations in the period of 2001 to 2003, resulting in three different suspension periods of 14, 18, and 30 days. Ms. Kaplan submits that as a matter of general and specific deterrence, and invoking the principle of progressive discipline, a 7 – 10 day suspension would be appropriate.
Mr. Blaha, agent for the licensee, submits that, as the absence of the warning sign was rectified right away, a caution to the licensee would be an appropriate penalty.
At the hearing, the evidence from Lucy Iannarella, the licence-holder’s daughter, was that she was aware of Sandy’s Law, but did not know that it required a sign. Ms. Higuera, the inspector, provided the licence-holder with the information to obtain a copy of the poster. It was Lucy Iannarella’s evidence that when she asked Ms. Higuera whether they would get a “ticket” as a result, the response was that they would not, as long as the warning sign was posted.
Given the nature of the one violation found in this instance, and the fact that this licensee has no record of violations of the Act or its regulations in over three years, a seven to 10 day suspension is too harsh a penalty in light of the finding made by the Board.
As the Board noted in its decision, it is incumbent upon licensees to be informed about changes to the regulations. If issues of non-compliance arise and are brought to a licensee’s attention, as occurred here, the licensee must respond diligently and promptly to bring the premises into compliance. The evidence suggests that this was done.
On these particular facts, the Board concludes that a period of suspension is not warranted.
THEREFORE, the Board hereby issues a WARNING to the licensee that she remain informed of changes to the Act and its regulations and ensure continued compliance with any such changes.
DATED AT TORONTO THIS 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2007.
PATRICIA MCQUAID, VICE-CHAIR
ALEX MCCAULEY, BOARD MEMBER
PM/mw