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 of Ontario
Registrar
-and-
1170651 Ontario Inc. O/A Mingal’s Restaurant & Bar
Licensee
DECISION ON Sanction
Panel: Patricia McQuaid, Vice-Chair Joan Lougheed, Board Member
Decision Date: February 12, 2009
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 ) Richard Kulis, Representative
1170651 Ontario Inc., Licensee ) Allen Qiang, on behalf of the ) Corporation
Allegations
- A hearing into Notice of Proposal number 16345 dated May 29, 2008, to suspend liquor licence number 20344 issued to 1170651 Ontario Inc., (the “Licensee”) operating as MINGAL’S RESTAURANT & BAR, 2386 Kingston Road, Scarborough, Ontario, M1N 1V2, (the “establishment” or the “premises”) on the basis of alleged violations of section 29 and subsection 45(2) of the Liquor Licence Act (“LLA”) and subsection 45(1) and paragraph 50(c) of Ontario Regulation 719/90 (“O.Reg”) made pursuant to the LLA, was held on September 4 and December 2, 2008, in the City of Toronto.
Decision
- In its decision dated January 15, 2009, the Board found the Licensee violated section 29 of the LLA and subsection 45(1) and paragraph 50(c) the O.Reg. Parties were directed to provide written submissions on an appropriate sanction. The Board has received and reviewed those submissions.
Decision On Sanction
In submissions, Mr. Kulis has stated that a 21 day suspension is appropriate, citing the amount consumed by Mr. Girard at the establishment prior to becoming involved in the car accident, as well as the Licensee’s inaction in response to prior concerns raised by police regarding Ms Allison. In addition, the violation of paragraph 50(c) is a public safety issue and therefore a concern.
Ms Sheng, in her submissions, proposes that a licence suspension of no more than four days would be appropriate, citing among other things the impact of a lengthy suspension on her employees in these tough economic times.
Ms Sheng does acknowledge that police had expressed concerns about incidents that occurred while Ms Allison was on duty. She states that she was intending to give a specific caution to Ms Allison but felt she did not have “hard evidence” to take the action of letting Ms Allison go. She advises that Ms Allison was “recommended to leave for a busier bar” where more than one bartender would be working on the same shift, thus providing a supervision mechanism by inference, an acknowledgment that Ms Allison may not have been working with the supervision she required.
Ms Sheng has, in submissions, indicated some measures recently taken to better educate staff on their responsibilities under the LLA and its regulations, including holding weekly staff meetings. The Board notes, too, that in his submissions Mr. Kulis acknowledged that Ms Sheng and her husband were reasonably diligent people. Further, this was the first violation for this licence-holder.
Following from that submission, the Board concludes that a 21 day suspension is too harsh, yet, though the licence holder has no doubt learned from this experience and has shown some remorse, a suspension of zero to four days would be too lenient and would not serve the goals of either general or specific deterrence.
The findings regarding service and sale of alcohol to Mr. Girard were serious ones. As the Board noted in its decision, too little was done by Ms Allison too late and likewise the licence-holder was too late in dealing with police concerns about Ms Allison. Instead of responding proactively, Ms Sheng chose to delay, seeking “hard evidence.” The Board considers violations for over-service and drunkenness as serious; these go to the heart of the responsible service of alcohol required by a licence-holder and her employees.
Mr. Girard was very clearly intoxicated when he was involved in the motor vehicle accident, less than one-half hour after he left Mingal’s. It is fortunate for all that more serious consequences from that accident did not follow.
The Board agrees with Mr. Kulis, that a violation for burned out light bulbs may be trivialized, but while apparently trivial in its occurrence, public safety issues that can ensue are not.
Conclusion
- Therefore, weighing the serious nature of the violations found with the fact that this is a first violation for a licence-holder that is reasonably diligent and remorseful, the Board finds that a fourteen (14) day suspension is appropriate.
Order
For the above-mentioned reasons, the Board ORDERS that liquor licence number 20344 issued to 1170651 Ontario Inc., operating as MINGAL’S RESTAURANT & BAR, 2386 Kingston Road, Scarborough, Ontario, M1N 1V2, be SUSPENDED for a period of fourteen (14) consecutive days.
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 12th DAY OF February , 2009
PATRICIA MCQUAID, VICE-CHAIR JOAN LOUGHEED, BOARD MEMBER