ALCOHOL AND GAMING COMMISSION OF ONTARIO
IN THE MATTER OF The: Liquor Licence Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. L.19, as amended
BETWEEN:
Registrar, Alcohol and Gaming Commission Ontario Registrar
-and-
Blake Charles Wood, Wei Hu o/a Jones Bar and Grill Licensee
DECISION ON SANCTION
Panel: Beryl Ford, Board Member S. Grace Kerr, Board Member
Decision Date: May 9, 2008
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 Blake Charles Wood and Wei Hu: Richard Kesten, Representative
Authorities
1590370 Ontario Ltd. (c.o.b. AC Bar & Grill Restaurant & Tavern (Re), [2007] O.A.G.C.D. No. 299 ("AC Bar & Grill")
Allegations
1A hearing into a Notice of Proposal number 15712 dated October 31, 2007 to suspend liquor licence number 280444 (the "Licence") issued to Blake Charles Wood and Wei Hu (the "Licensee"), operating as JONES BAR AND GRILL ('the establishment'), 1169 Queen Street East, Toronto, Ontario, M4M 1L5, on the basis of alleged violations of subsection 45(1) of Ontario Regulation 719/90 (the "O.Reg") made pursuant to the Liquor Licence Act ("LLA") was held on March 13, 2008 in Toronto, Ontario.
Decision
2The Board found the Licensee breached subsection 45(1) of the O. Reg. Parties were directed to provide written submissions on appropriate sanction. The Board has received and reviewed those submissions and ORDERS the licence be suspended for a period of eighteen (18) consecutive days. Reasons follow.
Submissions
3The Registrar asks for the Licence to be suspended for 18-21 days on grounds that:
- this is a second offence. The Board imposed a 14 day suspension for violations of sections 45(1) and 29 of the O.Reg. on the Licensee in January 2007;
- two patrons were found drunk in the licensed establishment, demonstrating that the Licensee failed in her onus to both prevent and deter drunkenness despite having ample opportunity to do so; and,
- for general deterrence reasons, the presence of intoxicated patrons in licensed establishments is a serious health and safety concern. As well, failure to appropriately sanction breaches such as occurred has negative implications regarding immoderate consumption and would diminish the public's confidence in the alcohol regulatory system.
4The Licensee submits a 16 day suspension would be appropriate because:
- only two of the four allegedly intoxicated patrons were found by the Board to have been intoxicated in the establishment;
- taken in context, the breaches were relatively innocuous; there were no allegations of disruptive behaviour;
- the Licensee knows her customers, is aware of their limits, monitors them carefully, and tries to comply with the Regulations. Also, there is no 'pattern of permitting drunkenness' as discussed in AC Bar & Grill. As such, specific deterrence is not required.
5The Registrar answered that the Licensee did not adequately monitor her patrons: the establishment was not busy on the night in question and, given the findings made by the Board, the Licensee was not as aware of her patron's limits as claimed.
Analysis/Reasons/Decision on Sanction
6The Board has carefully considered the submissions of both parties on this issue. It has concluded that an eighteen day suspension of the establishment's liquor licence is appropriate.
7In this case, two of the four, or one-half of the patrons in Ms. Hu's establishment were intoxicated when Inspector Strongman attended. Also, there is a very recent, past history for violation of the same LLA sections; in fact, the Licensee served a suspension in that regard two months before the present incident.
8Furthermore, the Licensee seeks to minimize the incidents. Conversely, she overstates the preventative and deterrent measures she took on the night in question. Clearly, Ms. Hu does not know her patrons and their limits as well as she would have the Board believe. While falling short of concluding that a 'pattern' has developed, as the Board found in the AC Bar & Grill decision, a 'tendency' is emerging with this Licensee. This concerns the Board and it needs to be nipped in the bud. Ms. Hu has not learned or applied the lesson intended by the first suspension order: all Licensees must abide the dictates of the LLA and its Regulations.
9Thus, the Registrar is correct that a significant suspension is appropriate in this matter. All of the factors outlined in paragraphs 7 and 8 above require that the suspension this Board orders must be longer than the 14-day suspension imposed for the Licensee's similar, prior offences. In coming to its decision to impose an 18 rather than a 21 day suspension, as sought by the Registrar, the Board has taken into account that Ms. Hu's establishment is small and that there was no disruptive behaviour involved in the incidents. The Board also concludes that an eighteen day suspension will appropriately satisfy the guiding principles of specific and general deterrence, given the particulars of this case.
Order
10The Board ORDERS that liquor licence number 280444, issued to Blake Charles Wood and Wei Hu operating as JONES BAR AND GRILL, 1169 Queen Street East, Toronto, Ontario, be suspended for a period of eighteen (18) consecutive days.
11The Licensee shall submit proposed suspension dates in writing to the Manager of Hearings, Hearings Department, Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario at the address on the front of this decision within seven (7) days of the date of this decision. The Board will set suspension dates without further notice to the Licensee if proposed dates are not provided within that time. The suspension must be served on days the establishment normally operates. The suspension may not start earlier than twenty (20) days from the date of this decision and must be completed within ninety (90) days of the date of this decision.
DATED AT TORONTO THIS 9th DAY OF JUNE, 2008
S. GRACE KERR, BOARD MEMBER BERYL FORD, BOARD MEMBER
SGK/sm