AGCO 2008

The applicant applied for a liquor licence to operate a restaurant cafe.

Two letters of objection were filed, but neither objector attended the hearing despite receiving adequate notice.

The Registrar took no position and had no concerns regarding the applicant.

The Board approved the application subject to statutory conditions and municipal regulations.

The licensee applied to remove a condition on its liquor licence that required the sale and service of alcohol to cease at 11:00 p.m.

The Registrar and resident objectors opposed the application, citing historical issues with noise, parking, and public urination under the previous ownership.

The Board found that the new owners had successfully changed the establishment's clientele to a more family-oriented demographic and had addressed previous concerns.

Concluding that removing the condition was not contrary to the public interest, the Board approved the application but imposed a new condition requiring the sale and service of alcohol to cease at midnight.

The Registrar issued a Notice of Proposal to suspend the licensee's liquor licence for violations of the Liquor Licence Act, including permitting drunken patrons, fights, and the use of excessive force by security staff.

The parties submitted an Agreed Statement of Facts and a Joint Submission on Disposition.

The Board accepted the joint submission, finding the licensee breached the Act and regulations.

The Board ordered a 19-day suspension of the liquor licence and added a condition requiring all beverages on the patio to be served in soft plastic cups.

At a pre-hearing conference regarding a Notice of Proposal to suspend a liquor licence, the Board ordered the licensee to disclose its witness list and evidence summaries to the Registrar 10 days prior to the hearing.

The Registrar was also ordered to complete any further disclosure 10 days before the hearing.

The applicant applied for a liquor licence for a proposed establishment, including an outdoor patio.

Local residents objected to the application, citing concerns about noise, disruption, and the over-concentration of licensed establishments in the neighbourhood.

The Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario approved the application, finding no specific evidence to disallow the licence for this applicant.

However, to address the residents' concerns, the Board imposed several conditions on the licence, including restrictions on patio capacity, hours of alcohol service, and a prohibition on music on the patio.

Following a hearing, the Board ordered a 21-day suspension of the respondent's liquor licence and requested the respondent propose suspension dates.

When the respondent failed to propose dates within the required timeframe, the remaining panel member issued an order setting the suspension to commence on April 21, 2008.

The Registrar sought a 28-day suspension of the respondent's liquor licence following a finding that three patrons were permitted to be drunk on the premises.

The Board noted that the licensee failed to participate in the proceeding, demonstrating a disinterest in the licensing regime.

Balancing the need for general and specific deterrence with the licensee's recent clean record, the Board ordered a 21-day suspension of the liquor licence.

The Registrar issued a Notice of Proposal to suspend the licensee's authorization to operate an on-site grape winery retail store.

The parties submitted an Agreed Statement of Facts admitting that the licensee bought and sold 56 cases of sparkling wine without performing significant winemaking steps, breaching condition 2 of its authorization.

The Board accepted the joint submission and ordered a three-day suspension of the authorization.

The Applicant applied for a liquor licence for a premises that had a history of noise and public order complaints under a previous operator.

The Registrar issued a Notice of Proposal to refuse the application based on past conduct and public interest concerns.

The City of Cambridge and local residents objected to the application.

The Registrar and the Applicant reached an agreement on conditions to address the conduct allegations.

The Board approved the application, finding that the public interest concerns were largely based on the previous operator, and imposed additional conditions to ensure the previous operators were not involved and to mitigate noise.

The Board previously found that the Licensee breached section 29 of Ontario Revised Regulation 719/90 under the Liquor Licence Act and ordered a two-day suspension of its liquor licence.

The Licensee proposed acceptable suspension dates.

The Board ordered the suspension to commence on May 20, 2008, and continue until May 22, 2008.

The Registrar issued a Notice of Proposal to suspend the Licensee's liquor licence for failing to clear signs of service and consumption within 45 minutes of closing, contrary to section 29 of O. Reg. 719/90.

Police observed staff consuming beer at the establishment at 3:00 a.m.

The Licensee admitted the violation, mistakenly believing the rule only applied to patrons.

The Board found the violation occurred and, considering the Licensee's cooperation and immediate corrective actions, ordered a two-day suspension rather than the five days sought by the Registrar.

The Registrar of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario issued a Notice of Proposal to suspend the liquor licence of the Bow and Arrow Pub for alleged overcrowding.

Two AGCO inspectors conducted head counts on St. Patrick's Day and found 126 and 120 patrons, respectively, in an area licensed for 80.

The licensee disputed the inspectors' counting methodology, arguing that counting from front to back was inaccurate.

The Board found the inspectors' evidence credible and consistent, rejecting the licensee's arguments regarding margin of error and counting methods.

The Board concluded that a breach of section 43 of Ontario Regulation 719/90 occurred and invited submissions on penalty.

Following a finding that the licensee breached the Liquor Licence Act by permitting drunkenness on its premises, the Board considered the appropriate sanction.

The Registrar sought a 21-day suspension, noting a prior suspension for a similar infraction.

The licensee argued for a 7-day suspension, citing the difficulty of assessing patron intoxication upon entry.

The Board ordered an 18-day suspension, emphasizing the licensee's prior record and its obligation to ensure patrons do not become drunk or remain on the premises once intoxicated.

The applicant applied for a liquor licence to operate a bar in the entertainment district.

The Registrar issued a Notice of Proposal to review the application after receiving objections from local residents.

At the hearing, the objectors did not oppose the granting of the licence but sought to impose conditions to mitigate noise and disturbances.

The applicant opposed the imposition of conditions, arguing it would place them at a competitive disadvantage.

The Board approved the licence but imposed several conditions, including requirements for a dedicated complaint line, noise containment, and garbage pick-up restrictions, finding them reasonable to address community concerns given the applicant's lack of experience and the area's history of challenges.

The applicant applied for a liquor sales licence for a nightclub.

The King Spadina Residents' Association objected to the application.

Prior to the hearing, the applicant and the objector reached an agreement on a set of conditions to be attached to the licence, and the objector withdrew its objection.

The Registrar took no position.

The Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario approved the application on consent, subject to the agreed-upon conditions regarding security personnel, surveillance cameras, noise control, and lighting.

The Registrar of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario issued a Notice of Proposal to revoke the liquor licence of the Atherley Arms Hotel based on alleged violations of the Liquor Licence Act and its regulations.

An undercover police operation revealed extensive drug trafficking by staff and patrons within the establishment.

The Board found that the licensee permitted the sale and distribution of controlled substances on the premises, permitted drunkenness, failed to have light meals available, and served an underage patron.

The Board dismissed a few specific date allegations but upheld the majority of the breaches, inviting written submissions on penalty.

The Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario held a pre-hearing teleconference regarding an application for a liquor licence by the applicant.

During the pre-hearing, the City of Toronto requested party status.

On consent of the parties, the Board granted the City of Toronto party status and ordered all parties to complete disclosure ten days before the scheduled hearing date.

The applicant applied for a liquor licence to operate a sports bar and café.

The Registrar issued a Notice of Proposal to review the application, and the City of Toronto and a local residents' association intervened and objected.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached an agreement on a set of conditions to be attached to the licence, including video security, restricted hours on Mondays and Tuesdays, and rear exit lighting.

The Board approved the application subject to the agreed-upon conditions.

The applicant applied for a liquor licence for additional areas to increase indoor capacity.

The King Spadina Residents' Association objected to the application.

Prior to the hearing, the applicant and the objector reached an agreement on a list of conditions, and the objector withdrew its objection.

The Registrar took no position.

The Board approved the application for an increased indoor capacity of 225 persons, subject to the agreed-upon conditions regarding security, lighting, and noise control.

The Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario held a pre-hearing teleconference regarding a Notice of Proposal to suspend the liquor licence of Vic's Place.

The Board ordered the licensee to disclose its witness list and detailed evidence summaries to the Registrar ten days prior to the scheduled hearing.

The Registrar was also ordered to complete any further disclosure within the same timeframe.