Registrar, Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario v. 2034233 Ontario Inc., 2009 CanLII 29738

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-

2034233 Ontario Inc. operating as Inter Steer Restaurant

Applicant

-and-

Veronica Wylie

Objector

DECISION

Panel: Jacqueline Castel, Board Member Joan Lougheed, Board Member

Decision Date: May 19, 2009

Hearing Location: London, 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 ) Phillip Morris, Representative

2034233 Ontario Inc., Applicant ) Jerry Levitan, Representative

Veronica Wylie ) On her own behalf and on behalf of ) the resident objectors

The Application

1The Registrar of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario (“AGCO”) issued Notice of Proposal number 17160, dated April 2, 2009, to review an application for the additional outdoor area for 28 persons (the “Application”) by 2034233 Ontario Inc. (the “Applicant” or the “Licensee”) operating as INTER STEER RESTAURANT, 357 Roncesvalles Avenue, Toronto, Ontario, M6R 2M8, (the “premises” or the “establishment”). A hearing of the Application was held on May 5, 2009 in the City of Toronto.

Decision

2After considering all of the evidence and submissions, the Board APPROVES the Application with conditions. Reasons follow.

Preliminary Matters

3Mr. Phillip Morris appeared on behalf of the Registrar and advised that the Registrar was taking no position with respect to the Application.

4Ms Veronica Wylie resides at 363A Roncesvalles Avenue. She appeared on behalf of the objectors and requested party status which was granted with the consent of the Applicant.

5Mr. Morris filed the following documents which were entered as exhibits:

Exhibit #1: Letters of Objection (three letters to AGCO and one letter to Committee of Adjustment).

Exhibit #2A-F: Photographs of the establishment and the street including one aerial photograph.

Exhibit 3: Acoustics Report, dated August 7, 2008, to Committee of Adjustment prepared by Mark Mracken of Aercoustics Engineering Limited.

Exhibit 4: Resume of Marc Bracken.

Exhibit 5: Map of the Area, with restaurants and bars colour-coded.

Exhibit 6: Handwritten list of restaurants and bars colour-coded on Exhibit 5.

6Mr. Levitan filed the following documents which were entered as exhibits.

Exhibit 7: Public Notice from the City of Toronto Re: Roncesvalles Avenue and Fermanagh Avenue Water Main Replacement and Sanitary Sewer Replacement.

Exhibit 8: Letter from Roncesvalles Village BIA, dated March 16, 2009.

Exhibit 9: City of Toronto website description of Roncesvalles Village BIA.

Exhibit 10: Two page website article on Roncesvalles Village.

7When Mr. Levitan filed a petition in support of the Application, Ms Wylie objected to it being entered as an exhibit on the ground that it was not disclosed to the objectors before the hearing and it represents hearsay evidence. Mr. Levitan responded that petitions are commonly introduced as exhibits in public interest hearings and hearsay evidence is permitted under the Board’s Rules of Practice. The Board entered the Petition in Support of the Application as Exhibit 11 but indicated that the weight which should be accorded to the petition could be addressed in evidence and submissions. The Board took a 20 minute break to allow the objectors an opportunity to review the petition.

Objectors’ Evidence

8Harry Pilfold is a self-employed consultant who has resided at 363A Roncesvalles Avenue since February 1, 2008. Mr. Pilfold’s house is the one above the Subway sign on Exhibit 2D. Exhibit 2E represents a photograph taken from Mr. Pilfold’s back porch. The patio would be approximately 30 feet away from his porch. Exhibit 2F represents a close-up photograph of the patio.

9Mr. Pilfold is bothered at his residence by two types of noise from the establishment. He hears live music a couple of times a week as the front windows of the bar are sometimes left open, as can be seen in Exhibit 2B. In addition, he hears noise from smokers who congregate in front of the establishment. As the evening goes on, the noise from smokers gets louder. The noise issues are much worse in the summer when he leaves his windows open.

10There used to be cigarette butts on the sidewalk in front of the establishment until the issue was raised with the Applicant at a pre-hearing conference. Once someone threw up on his doorway, although he could not say for sure that the person was a patron of the establishment.

11He has never called the police about the noise because he wanted to give the establishment the opportunity to be a good neighbour. The establishment should know what its customers are doing and take care of the problems.

12He has been to the establishment as a customer two or three times. The establishment is clearly a bar, not a restaurant. The establishment has a juke box, pool table, big screen television and booths. There are no menus posted on the outside windows. Sometimes there is a sandwich board in the afternoon or evening. He has only eaten bar food at the establishment.

13Referring to the Applicant’s petition in support of the patio (Exhibit 11), Mr. Pilfold stated that there are 128 names on the petition. Of the names on the petition, three are relatives and 55 or 56 do not live in the immediate neighbourhood of the establishment. In addition, 28 of the entries on the petition are incomplete (e.g., no address, no phone number or illegible name). When someone fails to include an address or phone number, it is not a strong statement of support.

14The front rooms of his home are currently very noisy and if the patio is licensed the back of the house will be noisy as well. He likes to leave his windows open in the summer and he is afraid it will be too noisy to do so. He does not want his sleep to be disturbed. The existing noise issues will worsen if people are sitting outside on a patio towards the back where his bedroom windows are located.

15He also has concerns about the establishment complying with the liquor laws. The establishment recently had its liquor licence suspended from February 1 to 6, 2008.

16On cross-examination, Mr. Pilfold acknowledged that Roncesvalles is a very busy street and that he knew the establishment was located in close proximity to his residence when he moved in. However, he indicated that he chose the specific block he lives on precisely because there were not a lot of bars. The other bar on the street, the Fat Cat Wine Bar, does not create a problem for him.

17Mr. Pilfold acknowledged that he has never spoken to anyone at the establishment about his complaints. He stated that he should not have to complain. The Applicant should know what their patrons are doing and be a good neighbour by addressing the problems on its own without being asked. He also acknowledged that he has never complained to the AGCO or to the police about the noise or anything else relating to the establishment.

18Mr. Pilfold clarified that the front of his residence faces Roncesvalles and his bedroom is at the back facing the laneway. The Subway fast-food place below his residence closes at around 11:00 p.m.

19Mr. Pilfold was asked whether the following conditions would address any of his concerns about the patio obtaining a liquor licence:

1. No music or amplified sound on the patio.

2. Doors leading to the patio cannot be propped open.

3. Last call on the patio to be 9:00 p.m., signs of service to be cleared by 9:45 p.m. and the patio to be closed by 10:00 p.m.

4. Residents to be given a telephone number for the Licensee which they can call any time of day or night with complaints.

5. No access to the laneway from the patio except as a fire escape.

6. Opening at back of patio fence to be closed.

20Mr. Pilfold stated that conditions 3, 4 and 5 would be an improvement, but the conditions do not go far enough in resolving his concern about the noise from patrons on the patio.

21Marc Bracken is an acoustical engineer and a partner in Aercoustics Engineering Limited where he works as an acoustical, vibration and shock consultant. His resume is at Exhibit 4. He also resides at 20 Lynd Avenue which is almost directly behind the establishment. He has lived there for five years. He wrote one of the three letters of objection, found at Exhibit 1, to the Application.

22Mr. Bracken also prepared the report to the Committee of Adjustments about the minor variance for 357 Roncesvalles Avenue, as both the owner of 20 Lynd Avenue and as an acoustical engineer with over 20 years of experience (Exhibit 3). In the report, he estimated noise emissions from the proposed patio. Specifically, he estimated a sound level of 55 to 65 dBA at the bedroom window at 20 Lynd, depending on the state of the patrons on the patio. This would be a 20 dB increase over the background sound level, which would be a violation of the City of Toronto noise by-law. Given the proximity of the patio to the backyards of the residents immediately to the east, the patio would also have a noise impact on outdoor living areas which he estimated at a 10-15 dB increase in sound level, making them unsuitable as a recreation space. Mr. Bracken stated at the hearing that when he prepared the report he was not aware that Veronica Wylie and Harry Pilfold reside closer to the establishment than Marcus Wong and Emilie Eisler. He based his estimates of noise emissions on the proximity between the establishment and the Wong/Eisler’s neighbouring residence, but in fact the estimates would be higher for the residence of Ms Wylie and Mr. Pilfold.

23Mr. Bracken stated that it is also likely that conversations of patio patrons would be audible, contravening paragraph 13(1)(g) of the Environmental Protection Act. Mr. Bracken discussed mitigating options in his report but concluded they would not be effective.

24Since the Committee of Adjustments approved the minor variance for the patio and there will be a patio regardless of whether or not the liquor licence is approved, Mr. Bracken was asked to comment on what difference it would make if the patio was licensed. He answered that consuming liquor will make people louder, particularly as the evening goes on. According to Mr. Bracken, sound levels increase with alcohol consumption.

25The windows from Mr. Bracken’s house which would be affected by the noise from the patio are bedrooms occupied by his young children. He does not want to have to keep the bedroom windows closed in the summer.

26Mr. Bracken has been to the establishment as a patron and considers it is very much a bar, despite the fact that the word “restaurant” is included in its name.

27Referring to the colour-coded list of bars/restaurants at Exhibit 5, Mr. Bracken indicated that the red ones are unlicensed, the yellow ones are licensed, and the green one is the Applicant. He then went through the list of bars/restaurants/coffee places at Exhibit 6:

• Fat Cat Wine Bar – has a patio but it caters to a different clientele than the establishment;

• Alternative Grounds – coffee place;

• Bistro 299 – not familiar with it;

• Boho – high end restaurant;

• Chopin – high end restaurant;

• Coffee and All that Jazz – front patio;

• Fresh wood Grill – restaurant;

• Gabby’s – not familiar with it;

• Ice Queen – not familiar with it;

• Loon’s – pub and restaurant;

• Gino’s – faces Dundas West;

• Sue Thai – has been to the restaurant for take-out but has never seen the patio;

• Local – patio faces the school;

• Sunrise – front patio;

• Timothy’s – coffee place;

• Second Cup – coffee place.

28Mr. Bracken stated that he sees patrons of the establishment smoking on the street late at night when he walks his dog, but he is not bothered by them. He indicated that the Applicant has been a good neighbour to him, and to date the establishment has not negatively impacted him or his family.

29On cross-examination, Mr. Bracken stated that he has seen establishments shut down because of noise violations and he knows how to shut down an establishment for such violations. He indicated that he intends to install noise monitors to ensure the establishment is complying with the City’s noise by-law and the Environmental Protection Act.

30Mr. Bracken stated that he has never lodged a complaint with the establishment, nor has he ever complained about the establishment to the AGCO, the City or the police.

31Mr. Levitan asked Mr. Bracken if any of the six conditions listed at paragraph 19 above would alleviate his concerns. Mr. Bracken indicated that he would prefer there be no patio, but if it is going ahead, the 9:00 p.m. last call would be a big improvement, and he also likes the condition prohibiting access to the laneway from the patio (except as a fire escape), describing the latter condition as “perfect”.

32Mr. Bracken acknowledged that his evidence represents projections of what could happen when the patio opens and if it receives a liquor licence.

33Marcus Wong has resided in the blue building, marked “Marcus and Emily” on page 1 Exhibit 2, since December 1, 2008. The building is one property away from the establishment. He backs onto the shared laneway which would be the immediate surrounding area for the patio.

34He works late as a guitar instructor, whereas his spouse, Emily, is a school teacher and likes to go to bed early. There is always a congregation of people smoking in front of the establishment near his doorway. The noise and smoke are particularly bad on Thursday, Friday and Saturday nights.

35Mr. Wong likes to be able to leave his windows open in the summer but he is afraid he will not be able to because of the noise. The smoke from people smoking in front of the establishment also blows up into his apartment when the windows are open and he has severe asthma. He is afraid that the noise levels from the patio will disrupt the sleep of his wife and himself in the spring and summer months. There is already noise from patrons hanging out in front of the establishment and when the patio opens there will be noise at the rear as well.

36He has never been in the establishment. He has never heard loud music coming from the establishment. It is the people talking loudly and smoking on the street in front of the establishment who are currently a problem for him, and he anticipates that noise from people on the patio in the rear will be a problem in the future.

37On cross-examination, Mr. Wong informed that the commercial building below his apartment is a photography studio. He admitted that the owner of the studio is a smoker who smokes in front of his store and in the backyard.

38Mr. Wong has never complained to anyone at the establishment, nor has he ever complained to the AGCO or the police about the establishment or its customers. He tries to be tolerant of his neighbours and he does not want to be the guy who tells people “they can’t do stuff”.

39Mr. Wong indicated that if music was not allowed on the patio it would alleviate his concerns. He indicated that he doesn’t care about the proposed restriction on the door being propped open, as he does not have a complaint about the music inside the establishment. He stated that he remains concerned about excessive volume of noise and sounds from the patrons on the patio. He indicated that making last call 9:00 p.m. and closing the patio at 10:00 p.m. would also alleviate his concerns, as would a 24 hour phone line where residents could lodge complaints. He does not have an opinion on ensuring that there is no access to the laneway from the patio (except as a fire escape).

Applicant’s Evidence

40Ewa Rawdwan has owned the establishment for 21 years. The establishment has been at its current location on Roncesvalles for two years. Ms Rawdwan would not describe the establishment as just a bar. They have a full kitchen and there is a full restaurant menu available until 1:00 a.m. They also open at noon for lunch. Their former chef used to be a sous-chef at Susur’s and their current chef was previously a sous-chef at Rain. At this time, Mr. Levitan filed an article about the establishment from Now Magazine’s Food and Drink section, entitled “No bum Steer here”, which was entered as Exhibit 12.

41Referring to Exhibit 8, Ms Rawdwan read the following from a letter from the Coordinator of the Roncesvalles Village BIA: “In general, we support the expansion of our businesses. Many of our restaurants and cafes up and down Roncesvalles Avenue have back patios. We believe that these enhance our businesses and improve the neighbourhood.”

42Referring to Exhibit 7, a Public Notice from the City of Toronto, Ms Rawdwan indicated that as a result of water main replacement and sanitary sewer replacement which is scheduled to take place between June and December 2009, it will not be possible for customers to use the front of the property. There will be too much construction.

43Referring to the petition at Exhibit 11, Ms Rawdwan explained that many of her customers asked her to open a patio, so she put the petition on the bar for two days to determine the level of support.

44Referring to Exhibit 5, Ms Rawdwan indicated that she would like the patio to have a liquor licence so that the establishment can compete with the other properties in the neighbourhood which have patios. The Fat Cat Wine Bar and Boho both have licensed patios. As a result of the recession, business is not good during the day and it is hoped that a patio will help improve business in the summer months. Even an unlicensed patio would help business during the day.

45Ms Rawdwan stated that the City approved the minor variance for the patio with the following conditions:

• 11:00 p.m. closing time;

• no speakers or live entertainment on the patio; and

• restaurant doors leading to the patio must be kept closed.

46Ms Rawdwan also indicated that the Applicant is prepared to accept the following additional and more onerous conditions:

• last call on the patio 9:00 p.m.;

• signs of service to be cleared on the patio by 9:45 p.m.;

• patio to be closed to the public by 10:00 p.m.;

• a phone number with 24 hours access, where residents can lodge complaints with the Applicant, will be provided; and

• no access to the back laneway from the patio except as a fire escape.

47Ms Rawdwan stated that she has never received a complaint about the establishment or customers from the establishment from any of the neighbours in the two years the establishment has been in its current location.

48Mr. Levitan asked Ms Rawdwan to explain why the establishment’s liquor licence was suspended in February 2009. At this time, Mr. Morris objected indicating that it is not appropriate to give evidence on the facts of another case, which was resolved by agreement. Mr. Morris proposed that the Agreement between the Licensee and the Registrar, which includes a summary of the agreed facts, could be made an exhibit. The Board asked Mr. Morris to have copies made of the Agreement in the matter of 2034233 Ontario Inc., dated December 4, 2008, and indicated that it would be entered as Exhibit 13.

49On cross-examination, Ms Rawdwan acknowledged that the article at Exhibit 12 refers to the establishment as a “Polish tavern”. She indicated that the establishment operated as a tavern in its previous location.

50Ms Rawdwan indicated that she did not seek an endorsement from the Roncesvalles Residents’ Association.

51Ms Rawdwan indicated that she knows that the individuals who signed the petition were not drunk when they signed it because there are no drunken people in her establishment. She could lose her liquor licence if she allowed drunken people to be in the establishment.

52Ms Rawdwan indicated she is not prepared to agree to make the patio non-smoking at this time. However, if the smoke from the patio becomes a problem once it is open, she is prepared to reconsider her position and address the problem. She does not want to agree to additional conditions on the basis of speculations about potential problems.

Objectors’ Submissions

53There is already a lot of noise from unruly customers of the establishment who smoke and hang out in front of it. If there is a patio, there will be noise at the back of their apartments as well. The noise will be worse if the patio is liquor licensed. Smoking is also an issue. Smoke blows up.

54The establishment has live music, a pool table and a juke box. They market themselves as a tavern. The Fat Cat Wine Bar caters to a higher end clientele and the customers do not create a disturbance.

55Licence holders have a legal duty to deter or minimize the harm from the establishment to the neighbourhood. Neighbours should not have to close their windows, and put on air conditioning at their own expense, because of noise from the establishment or its patrons.

56Ms Wylie stated that she recognizes that the Applicant is trying to be a better neighbour, noting that after the pre-hearing conference call, when the issue about cigarette butts on the street was raised, the Applicant put ashtrays outside.

57An unlicensed patio would be more family-friendly.

Licensee’s Submissions

58This is a legitimate application for additional licensed area for a twenty seat patio. The minor variance has been approved by the City. The patio will exist regardless of whether the liquor licence is approved. The AGCO is not the smoking or noise Commission, and the body which is responsible for the regulation of noise and smoke approved the minor variance for the patio, subject to conditions.

59Mr. Pilfold and Mr. Wong are relatively new residents in the area. They chose to live in apartments on a busy street. Mr. Bracken has lived in the neighbourhood for five years. He testified that he is not currently bothered by the establishment.

60The resident objectors were primarily concerned about what could happen, not what has happened to date. The Applicant has never been prosecuted for intoxication or disorderly conduct. Since opening in the neighbourhood it has never received a complaint about the establishment or its patrons. None of the objectors have ever complained to the AGCO, the City or the police about the establishment or its patrons.

61It is not fair or reasonable to say that the establishment should know what its customers are doing after they leave the premises.

62The Applicant has been generous about agreeing to the following conditions, some of which are more restrictive than the ones imposed by the City:

1. No music or speakers on the patio;

2. Doors leading to the patio cannot be propped open; and

3. Last call on the patio will be 9:00 p.m., with the signs of service cleared by 9:45 p.m. and the patio closed by 10:00 p.m.

The conditions are onerous and respectful of the concerns of neighbours.

63Most of the objectors’ concerns about the patio had to do with the fear of being kept up at night by noise from the patio. If the patio is closed by 10:00 p.m. it will not affect night time sleeping.

64Without a licensed patio, the Applicant would be in a competitive disadvantage.

65In addition to the conditions, the City also put a one year expiration on the variance for the patio. As such, if the Applicant does not comply with the conditions or if the City receives complaints, it can require the Applicant to close the patio after a year. Mr. Bracken testified that he knows how to shut a place down for noise violations and intends to install sound monitors. As such, the residents are well protected if any problems should arise, and the Applicant also has a vested interest in making sure problems do not arise.

Reply Submissions

66While the objectors knew the front of their apartments would be noisy when they moved in, they thought they would have quiet at the back. They will no longer be able to retreat to the back of their apartments when the patio is opened and it will be noisier if it is licensed.

67The Applicant did not introduce any evidence that there has been a drop in business because of the recession. An unlicensed patio would still get business.

68The Board should not give much weight to the petition, as it is not clear who signed it.

Reasons and Analysis

69The Board has carefully considered the evidence and submissions of the parties. At issue in this hearing is whether the granting of a licence for a patio is in the public interest having regard to the needs and wishes of the residents of the municipality in which the premises is located. The onus is on the objectors to establish, on a balance of probabilities, that the issuance of the licence is not in the public interest. In determining whether the needs and wishes of the residents are bona fide, the Board will consider the totality of the evidence to evaluate whether the subjective concerns and fears of the residents are supported on a valid and objective basis.

70In this case, the Board heard from three residents, Mr. Pilfold, Mr. Bracken and Mr. Wong. Their principal concern with the application related to potential noise from the patio. Mr. Pilfold and Mr. Wong have existing complaints about the establishment, albeit ones they have never brought to the attention of the Applicant. Mr. Pilfold finds the noise from music inside the establishment a couple of times a week to be a disturbance. Mr. Wong is not bothered by music from inside the establishment. Mr. Pilfold and Mr. Wong are both bothered by loud customers congregating and smoking in front of the establishment on Roncesvalles Avenue. Mr. Pilfold and Mr. Wong believe that there will be more noise issues and disturbances, but now on the back side of their residences, if the patio is licensed.

71In contrast, Mr. Bracken has no present complaints with the establishment and testified that he believes the Applicant has been a good neighbour to date. However, he believes, based on his experience as an acoustical engineer, that noise emissions from the patio will create a disturbance, violating the Toronto noise by-law and paragraph 13(1)(g) of the Environmental Protection Act, for neighbours with backyards immediately to the east of patio. The windows from his own house on Lynd Avenue which would be affected by the patio are occupied by his young children. Mr. Bracken also believes that noise emissions will be worse if patrons are allowed to consume alcohol on the patio.

72The Applicant has expressed a willingness and desire to minimize the potential negative effects of the patio on the residents and to be a good neighbour by proposing conditions which are more onerous and restrictive than those imposed by the City. In fairness to the Applicant, the objectors openly acknowledged that they have never complained about their existing concerns with the establishment and its patrons to the Applicant, the AGCO, the City or the police. When the objectors did raise a concern about cigarette butts being left on the sidewalk in front of the establishment at a recent pre-hearing conference, Mr. Pilfold and Ms Wylie were very forthright in volunteering that the Applicant took prompt corrective action and they appreciated same.

73While the objectors all indicated that they would prefer that there be no patio, they understood that the City approved the patio subject to certain conditions. The objectors also indicated that if there has to be a patio they would prefer that patrons not be permitted to consume beverage alcohol on it. However, they also acknowledged that some of the conditions which the Applicant has agreed to would alleviate some of their concerns about a licensed patio. Indeed, the conditions prohibiting music or amplified sound on the patio and requiring the patio to close to the public by 10:00 p.m., respond directly to the resident objectors’ main concern that noise from the patio will disturb their sleep.

74The Board found the three resident objectors who testified to be credible witnesses and does not doubt that the concerns they expressed about noise are genuine and real to them. However, the Board cannot make a decision based on conjecture and speculation about potential negative impacts of a licensed patio. Although the Board did not place much weight on the Applicant’s petition in support of the patio, there was also insufficient evidence that the objectors have met the onus of establishing, on a balance of probabilities, that the issuance of a liquor licence is not in the public interest.

75Responding to the concerns of the resident objectors, however, the Board has concluded that it would be appropriate to attach the conditions agreed to by the Applicant to this licence, as well as an additional condition relating to signage.

76Finally, a number of existing concerns about the establishment were raised at this hearing which were not directly relevant to the licensing of the patio, such as the noise and smoke from customers congregating in front of the establishment. The Board hopes that now that these concerns have been brought to the attention of the Applicant, it will implement any necessary remedial measures on its own. The Board further hopes that the residents will take advantage of the 24 hour phone line the Applicant has agreed to make available and promptly bring to its attention any concerns or issues so that they may be addressed.

Order

77For the above reasons, the Board APPROVES the application to licence an additional outdoor area for 28 persons of 2034233 Ontario Inc., operating as INTER STEER RESTAURANT, 357 Roncesvalles Avenue, Toronto, Ontario, M6R 2M8, subject to compliance with all statutory conditions and municipal regulations.

78Further, the Board ORDERS that the following conditions be attached to the licence:

1. No music, live entertainment or amplified sound are permitted on the patio.

2. Beverage alcohol service on the patio must cease at 9:00 p.m., with the signs of service removed by 9:45 p.m.

3. The patio must be closed to the public by 10:00 p.m.

4. The doors leading to the patio must not be propped open.

5. The Licensee shall provide a telephone number for residents to register concerns or complaints with 24 hour access every day.

6. There shall be no access to the laneway from the patio, except as a fire escape.

7. The Licensee shall post a prominent sign at each exit that reminds and/or encourages exiting patrons to be considerate of the surrounding community.

DATED AT TORONTO, THIS 19^th day of May , 2009.