Registrar, Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario v. The Duke of Hillsburgh Tavern Inc., 2009 CanLII 69690

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-

The Duke of Hillsburgh Tavern Inc. operating as or intending to operate as

The Duke of Hillsburgh Tavern

Applicant

-and-

Dennis Kwasnicki

Objector

DECISION

Panel: Beryl Ford, Board Member Alex McCauley, Board Member

Decision Date: November 10, 2009

Hearing Location: Hillsburgh, 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 The Duke of Hillsburgh Inc, Applicant ) Eugene Bhattacharya, Representative Dennis Kwasnicki ) On his own behalf and on behalf of ) the resident objectors

The Application

1. The Registrar of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario (“AGCO”) issued Notice of Proposal number 17352, (“NOP”), dated July 15, 2009 to review an application made by The Duke of Hillsburgh Inc, (the “Applicant”), operating or intending to operate as THE DUKE OF HILLSBURGH TAVERN, 1 Anne Street, RR #1, Hillsburgh, Ontario, N0B 1Z0 (the “premises or the “establishment”), establishment number 813866, for the indoor and outdoor areas of the premises with capacities of 49 and 22. A hearing of the application was held on September 2, 2009 in the community of Hillsburgh (Town of Erin).

Decision

2. After considering all the evidence and submissions the Board APPROVES the application for a liquor licence with the attached conditions. Reasons for these findings follow.

Preliminary Matters

3. Richard Kulis appeared on behalf of the Registrar. He advised the Board that the Registrar took no position on the public interest aspects of the hearing.

4. Mr. Dennis Kwasnicki appeared before the Board on his own behalf and as the representative of the resident objectors. On consent of all parties, the Board ORDERED that Mr. Kwasnicki be made a party to the proceedings.

5. Mr. Bhattacharya representing the Applicant asked the Board to observe the large crowd of residents that were present for the hearing. The residents represented both the Objectors and those in support of the Applicant. Mr. Bahattacharya asked for a show of hands of those present representing the application for a liquor licence. It was noted by the Board that over two thirds of those present did support the application.

6. Mr. Kwasnicki raised the issue of disclosure in both preliminary matters at the hearing and again in his written submission to the Board.

7. In rendering its decision the Board will first address the issue of disclosure raised by Mr. Kwasnicki.

8. Mr. Kwasnicki states in his submissions that Rule 10 of the AGCO Revised Rules of Practice was breached; as a result the position of the residents was seriously prejudiced.

9. This is incorrect. At the outset of the hearing Mr. Kwasnicki raised the issue of lack of disclosure and stated that he was going to request an adjournment. However, ultimately no such request was actually made.

10. At the hearing, the Board was made aware that counsel for the Applicant had recently been retained.

11. The Board was advised by the Applicant’s Counsel that the disclosure issues amounted to a petition in support of the Applicant that had not been provided to the objectors. The Applicant was not going to introduce any expert or technical evidence.

12. The Board pointed out to Mr. Kwasnicki at the hearing that Rule 1 and specifically 1.2 of the AGCO Revised Rules of Practice stated “The Board may waive or vary any rule where appropriate.”

13. There were many local residents at the hearing who were were anxious to proceed with the hearing. It was the view of the Board that to adjourn the hearing without making every effort to have the matter heard would not have been fair to those who made efforts to attend and wanted the hearing to proceed.

14. The Board was of the opinion that disclosure issues were of minor consequence and could possibly be resolved to the satisfaction of the parties.

15. Without invoking its discretionary authority pursuant to Rule 1.2, the Board directed that a short recess take place and with the assistance of Registrar’s Representative, Richard Kulis, there be an attempt by the parties to resolve the disclosure issue.

16. The parties, including Mr. Kwasnicki, were advised that if they could not resolve the disclosure issue at that time the Board would then entertain a motion to adjourn.

17. The parties returned after the recess and advised that the disclosure matters had been resolved and the hearing proceeded.

Objector’s Evidence

18. Ms Allison Beck is a resident of 7 Anne Street. She lives in close proximity to the establishment.

19. Her major concerns were related to the potential for excessive noise emanating from the premises and the patio area. She is concerned that there will be insufficient parking to accommodate patrons and there will be additional traffic and parking on the street she resides on.

20. Ms Beck expressed her concern that property values would drop as a result of a bar located close to residential properties.

21. The community is a small community that has no taxi service and lacks public transportation. There is a lack of police presence in Hillsburgh according to Ms Beck. She is concerned drunk driving would become a greater issue.

22. Ms Beck informed the Board that she moved to the community because of the peace and quiet of a small community. She commutes three hours daily to and from her workplace.

23. Ms Beck testified that although she objects to the issuance of a liquor licence, she acknowledged that the Applicant, Mr. Kirkpatrick, is a great improvement over the previous owner of the pizza parlour.

24. Ms Beck further testified it is her belief that the Applicant started renovations and construction on the premises prior to receiving permits. She questions his respect for the law under these circumstances.

25. Ms Beck raised concerns about the communication she had received from the Applicant.

26. A female, who she assumed was one of the owners of the establishment, but who she was not able to identity, had made phone calls asking residents go to the establishment to meet the new owners and discuss the petition.

27. She felt threatened when she heard the female caller say that people whose names remained on the petition would be banned from the restaurant and the Applicant would engage a lawyer.

28. However, Ms Beck acknowledged in cross-examination that a letter signed by Mr. A. Kirpatrick dated July 20^th, 2009 (Exhibit #1) to residents made no mention of anyone being sued. As she is not familiar with the process of applying for a liquor licence she still felt threatened that the Applicant was going to hire a lawyer and a court date would follow, according to the letter.

29. An anonymous letter was thrown onto her sidewalk saying the business was just a family business and if she didn’t take her name off the petition the owners planned on going to court.

30. In cross-examination, Ms Beck agreed that roads near the establishment are being improved by the municipality and the current parking lot at the establishment has been improved.

31. Peter James Marshall has lived at 10 Anne Street for almost four years. He purchased his historic home in Hillsburgh because of the quiet nature of the community.

32. He has invested a considerable amount of money in the restoration of his property and is concerned that a licensed establishment in such close proximity will depreciate the value of his home.

33. His home is located across the street from the establishment which is visible from his house.

34. Mr. Marshall’s major concerns are parking, noise and the hours of operation. He is concerned with the volume of traffic and the possibility of excessive consumption of alcohol causing further problems.

35. Mr. Marshall expressed his concern that people will park on the street outside his home due to the lack of parking spaces at the establishment. He confirmed that parking is available at a baseball diamond in the area.

36. In cross-examination, Mr. Marshall acknowledged that he was aware that a licensee must comply with the Liquor Licence Act (“LLA”) and it is illegal to allow patrons to remove alcohol from the licensed premises.

37. He was receptive to the suggestion that video surveillance could monitor the surrounding area which could reduce problems in the immediate area.

38. Jeff Parkins lives at 16 Anne Street, in close proximity to the establishment.

39. Mr. Parkins testified that prior to the current ownership of The Duke of Hillsburgh Tavern, the premises housed a convenience store and then a pizza parlour. He had visited both of these businesses on occasion and did not find parking an issue because the customers usually were in and out of the premises quickly.

40. Mr. Parkins acknowledged that he had signed a petition (Exhibit #3) circulating in the neighbourhood as being opposed to a liquor licence being granted to the Applicant. His concerns were mainly noise, parking and excessive traffic in the neighbourhood.

41. The Applicant distributed a letter in the neighbourhood inviting residents to a meeting at the establishment to discuss their concerns. The letter stated that if people wish to remove their name from the earlier petition opposing the liquor licence, they had an opportunity to sign the letter.

42. After attending the meeting called by the Applicant, Mr. Parkins was satisfied that the Applicant was willing to work with the residents to resolve some of their concerns. He signed the letter to have his name removed from the petition (Exhibit #2).

43. At the meeting, residents were told that parking would be on Mill Street (Exhibit #4) but in Mr. Parkins’ opinion, he doesn’t believe there would have been space on Mill Street for additional parking.

44. Mr. Parkins was also concerned about the name on the premises. He thought that with the word “Tavern” in the name, it would be identified as a bar rather than primarily a family restaurant.

45. The Applicant assured him that the word “Tavern” would be taken out of the signage to be placed outside the premises. However, the Applicant didn’t fulfill this commitment and placed a sign which clearly identified the premises as The Duke of Hillsburgh Tavern.

46. In cross-examination, Mr. Parkins stated that he felt he was misled by the Applicant. He believes the establishment is a bar. He stated that a restaurant is a good thing and people in the community would welcome a restaurant, but he is opposed to a bar. He would not object to a liquor licence if the premises were closed at 8:00 p.m. after the dinner hour.

47. Patricia Marie Snow has lived at 4 Anne Street for the past 13 years. Her home is located 50 feet from the front of the establishment immediately across the road.

48. Ms Snow sent a letter dated June 5^th, 2009 to the AGCO expressing her objections to the issuance of a liquor licence to The Duke of Hillsburgh Tavern (Exhibit #5).

49. Ms Snow described the area of Anne Street as a quiet side street and expressed her concern about additional traffic in the area. Children walk to school and frequently play on the street.

50. Her occupation requires her to work shifts; she rises at 4:00 a.m. It is her concern that a bar that operated until 2:00 a.m. with patrons leaving at such a late hour, would disturb her sleep and that of the neighbours.

51. Ms Snow raised concerns about the lack of parking for the establishment. She stated that they only have seven parking spots outside the premises; five of those spots are already taken by residents who live in the two apartments above the premises.

52. She was told by the Applicant that the main entrance would be at the rear of the building.

53. He was extending the parking lot and adding additional parking spaces. He was increasing the number of parking spaces to exceed those required by the municipality.

54. Ms Snow acknowledged that a tree had been removed from the property. She was unaware of how many extra parking spaces were created.

55. The Applicant had told her that the stand up bar at the establishment was only for people waiting for tables to order meals.

56. She was also told by the Applicant that if patrons became belligerent after four or five beers, he would ask them to leave.

57. Another concern raised was that snowmobilers would use the bar late at night to consume alcohol.

58. Ms Snow agreed that she was aware that the property is zoned commercial by the municipality.

59. In cross-examination it was pointed out that that she was operating a commercial business from her property. She indicated that it was her husband’s business and he was directly responsible for the operation and agreed that two trucks and a trailer operate from her residence.

60. Mr. Ryan Vandertol has lived with his family at 5 Anne Street for the past two years. He moved to Hillsburgh from Toronto, attracted by the small, quiet, safe community atmosphere.

61. The major concerns expressed by Mr. Vandertol reflected those of other Objectors.

62. Mr. Vandertol described for the Board that he has a child with serious health issues. They keep their windows open as much as possible to ease his condition and help him sleep.

63. He is concerned that the noise of people leaving the establishment late at night will disturb their sleep.

64. Mr. Vandertol confirmed in cross-examination that his concern of parking issues on the street would not hinder emergency response vehicles if they were required.

65. The Applicant had invited him to the premises and told him that he was putting the parking lot at the back of the premises. He has recently noted that the rear area is completely fenced in which would not allow for parking and felt this information provided by the Applicant was not accurate.

66. In cross-examination, it was pointed out to Mr. Vandertol that the site plan showed a fence at the rear of the building. Mr. Vandertol stated that he did not know if the fence showed on the site plan as he had difficulty reading the plan (Exhibit #4).

67. John Robert Thompson has lived directly opposite the establishment at 2 Anne Street for the past 20 years.

68. Mr. Thompson expressed his concerns of the impact of a licensed establishment directly across the street from his residence.

69. Parking is a major concern. The potential for noise late at night caused by patrons leaving the establishment added to his opposition of the liquor licence.

70. Mr. Thompson attended an open house hosted by the Applicant. He believed that some of the issues they discussed would be resolved. The name of the establishment describes it as a tavern. Mr. Thompson confirmed his belief that the establishment would operate as a bar within the premises.

71. A fence has been erected at the rear of the building preventing additional parking in that area. He was of the understanding additional parking would be at the rear of the building and prevent the traffic in front of his home.

Applicant’s Evidence

72. Archibald Kirkpatrick is the owner and Applicant for the liquor license for The Duke of Hillsburgh Tavern.

73. He explained to the Board that he currently leases the premises at 1 Anne Street, Hillsburgh and intends to purchase the building along with the building next door when the five year lease expires.

74. Prior to entering into a lease, Mr. Kirkpatrick did research on the feasibility of such a venture over a period of five years.

75. Mr. Kirkpatrick received all necessary permits from the municipality prior to commencing renovations which to date has cost approximately $250,000 to $300,000. This amount includes $25,000 spent on sound-proofing the building.

76. Mr. Kirkpatrick applied for a liquor licence from the AGCO for the establishment to be known as The Duke of Hillsburgh Tavern. The application requested a total capacity of 71 patrons to include the inside seating and patio area. The occupation limits considered by the Board were those as outlined in the NOP.

77. The Applicant distributed a letter to the community introducing himself and his plans for a family restaurant. This letter also attempted to address rumours that were circulating in the community with respect to the proposed establishment (Exhibit #8).

78. After becoming aware that there were objections to the liquor licence from residents, Mr. Kirkpatrick distributed a letter in the neighbourhood inviting residents to a meeting in an attempt to listen to and address some of the concerns (Exhibit #1).

79. Some residents did attend and after hearing proposals to address their concerns, some residents removed their names from a petition objecting to the issuance of a liquor licence.

80. The Applicant submitted photographs and photocopies of the premises, parking area and surroundings to the Board which were then entered as exhibits.

81. He described the plans to run The Duke of Hillsburgh as a family business with the assistance of his wife and brother who is an experienced chef. The Applicant’s family has a background in the restaurant business that spans 30 years.

82. Mr. Kirkpatrick indicated that he was creating jobs in the community with the hiring of over 20 individuals to work in the establishment.

83. He will ensure that all staff is Smart Serve trained and certified, and plans to take the Smart Serve training and certification himself as soon as possible.

84. The municipality required the premises to have 16 parking spaces to meet their standards, 14 spaces for patrons and two spaces allocated to the two apartments above the premises. The Applicant has created a total of 22 parking spaces, exceeding requirements.

85. Mr. Kirkpatrick had trees removed and the ground adjacent to the building levelled and has widened the parking lot.

86. The patio area at the rear of the building has been fenced in with the intent of providing a secure seating area for families with children.

87. Three security cameras operate outside the building and one camera inside the premises. This allows for complete surveillance around the front of the building at all times.

88. A smoking area is located outside at the rear of the building to discourage people from standing outside the front of the building on the street.

89. After 10:00 p.m. it is a management requirement that patrons leave from the rear of the building to reduce noise in the neighbourhood.

90. Mr. Kirkpatrick outlined the hours of operation which would involve opening Tuesdays, Wednesdays, Thursdays and Sundays until 11:00 p.m. Friday and Saturdays could be later depending upon special events or entertainment.

91. Mr. Kirkpatrick told the Board that he expected his main source of revenue from the business to be generated by food sales and expected 75% of his revenue would come from the kitchen sales with the remainder from alcohol sales.

92. Mr. Kirkpatrick told the Board, if the liquor licence was issued he would not be opposed to conditions.

93. Gwyneth Kay Williams lives at 1 Anne Street in an apartment above the premises of the Applicant. She has been a tenant at this address for the past nine years.

94. Ms Williams described for the Board the history of her tenure at this address. The premises below her apartment was a convenience store in the past. She worked in the store and owned the store for the last two years. A decline in business caused her to close the business.

95. Ms Williams plans on staying in her apartment as a tenant. She testified that since the Applicant has taken over the premises it has improved greatly. She is no longer disturbed by the noise from the business below due to the sound proofing insulation and dry-walling that has been installed by the Applicant. He has installed a new wall and improved the outside area considerably.

96. There are six parking spots currently for the tenants. She did not believe that parking would be an issue for the establishment as the Applicant has created extra parking.

97. There are no restaurants in Hillsburgh and residents must drive to Erin, some 15 kilometres away, to find a restaurant.

98. Ms Williams expressed that a local restaurant would be nice for residents of Hillsburgh.

99. Ms Williams attended the meeting called by the Applicant to discuss issues that had been raised by local residents.

100. In cross-examination, Ms Williams told the Board she was concerned about noise and drunks when she knew that the word ‘tavern’ was in the name. She interpreted it to mean it was going to be a bar.

101. However, after attending the meeting and listening to the discussion, she felt the Applicant had addressed her concerns. She was unaware that the word “Tavern” means an eatery, until the Applicant shared this with her.

102. Ms Williams confirmed that she might consider working as a cleaner at the establishment if the opportunity arises.

Objectors’ Submissions

103. Dennis Kwasnicki provided written submissions on behalf of the Resident Objectors of Anne Street. The issue of disclosure was addressed initially in this decision.

104. The major concerns raised by the Objectors were:

• The lack of parking for the establishment;

• Noise levels emanating from the establishment in the late evening disturbing the Residents and disrupting sleep;

• Slamming of car doors of patrons leaving the establishment coupled with loud conversations between patrons as they leave the establishment;

• Noise levels from a licensed outdoor patio in the late evening hours. Music from speakers on the patio would add to the concerns;

• The Applicant’s credibility was challenged by information that differed from face to face conversations and written communication;

• Decreasing property values;

• Traffic congestion created by narrow streets adjacent to the establishment;

• The lack of taxi service and the potential for an increase in drinking and driving offences;

• Hours of operation.

105. The Objectors submitted that they do not oppose a licensed establishment or bar in the town of Hillsburgh, just the fact that the establishment will be on their street, and therefore directly impacting their lives.

106. The Objectors proposed that, should a licence be granted to the Applicant, conditions be imposed and enforced in the licence.

107. Submissions included proposed conditions.

Applicant’s Submissions

108. The Applicant submitted that all the Objectors that testified at the hearing were residents of Anne Street. Each Objector either lived on the same side or across the street from the establishment.

109. The concerns of the Objectors were similar in nature and included the following:

• Parking and traffic issues.

• Late night noise and disturbances from the premises.

• Drinking and driving from the establishment.

• Police response time in terms of any problems that may arise.

110. The Applicant’s submissions reiterated the evidence of the witnesses for the Objectors and highlighted the exhibits that were received into the record at the hearing.

111. Evidence that indicated that a majority of residents that attended the Hearing supported the licence being granted was pointed out.

112. It is the Applicant’s submission that, overall, the nature of the concerns expressed by the Objectors have been addressed by the Applicant.

113. Parking and traffic have been addressed by improvement to the outside of the premises, a new parking lot and steps taken by the municipality to improve the roadways adjacent to the commercial properties.

114. Concerns of noise and disturbance are being dealt with by video camera surveillance both inside and outside the establishment.

115. Employees are qualified by Smart Serve to ensure compliance with the LLA.

116. Staff will direct patrons to depart by the back entrance after 10:00 p.m.

117. 1 Anne Street is a commercial premises. It has been a commercial premises for decades.

118. Issues involving police response time are community issues that are unrelated to the Applicant’s licence.

Reasons and Analysis

119. The Board has carefully considered the evidence and submissions of the parties. The Board has concluded that the Applicant should be approved for a liquor licence, with conditions.

120. At issue is whether granting this application for a liquor licence is in the public interest having regard to the needs and wishes of the residents of the municipality in which the premises are located.

121. The onus lies upon the Objectors to prove on the balance of probabilities that granting the licence is not in the public’s interest.

122. In order to determine whether the needs and wishes of the residents are bona fide, the Board has considered all of the evidence and evaluated whether the subjective concerns and fears of the residents are supported on a valid and objective basis.

123. In this case, the Board heard from seven witnesses for the Objectors, which included Mr. Dennis Kwasnicki representing the Objectors at the Hearing.

124. All of the witnesses for the Objectors live on Anne Street, in close proximity to the establishment. A couple of witnesses live directly across the street from the establishment and have a direct line of vision to the premises. Other witnesses live on the same side of the street, just a few houses away from the premises.

125. The concerns of the Objectors were similar in nature and included the following:

• Parking and traffic issues.

• Late night noise and disturbances from the premises with people on the patio and music on the patio.

• Patrons leaving the premise, cars starting, and patrons engaging in loud conversation.

• Drinking and driving from the establishment.

126. An additional concern relates to the potential that having a licensed premises in close proximity to their properties may lower their property values.

127. The Applicant did communicate through written material and held a face to face meeting with some of the residents.

128. The Board heard evidence that the Applicant’s written correspondence to the residents intimidated and offended some of the Objectors. The Board reviewed the correspondence, and is of the view that it was not threatening in tone or intent.

129. The Applicant has expressed a willingness and desire to minimize the potential negative effects that a licensed premises would have on its neighbours.

130. The Applicant is willing to abide by conditions which might alleviate the Objectors’ concerns.

131. One witness for the Applicant in support of the application lives in an apartment directly above the premises at 1 Anne Street.

132. She has resided at this address for the past nine years. She confirmed that the noise issues she had experienced from the previous business, a pizza parlour, had now stopped completely.

133. The Applicant has sound-proofed the establishment with insulation and additional dry-wall materials which reduced the noise level for tenants in the apartments above the establishment considerably.

134. Witnesses for both the Objectors and the Applicant agreed that there has been a big improvement in the parking around the establishment and the Applicant had improved the outside appearance of the establishment.

135. It was evident to the Board from a petition signed by 74 residents and the large number of people who indicated their support at the hearing, that opposition to the liquor licence was confined to some residents who live on Anne Street.

136. Policing issues, the lack of public transportation and taxi service are community issues and not matters that relate directly to the issuance of a liquor licence by the AGCO.

137. It is the responsibility of a Licensee to ensure compliance with the LLA. Failure to comply with the LLA can result in serious consequences for the Licensee.

138. The Board understands the concerns of the Objectors that their property values may be negatively affected by having a licensed premises in the neighbourhood. This fear, however, is speculative and there is no objective evidence to support it.

139. The residents objecting to the issuance of a liquor licence to the applicant were also concerned about the issue of drinking and driving. The Board notes that there are no licensed facilities or restaurants in the community and residents who would want to go for dinner and a drink are forced to drive, creating an equal or greater concern in the mind of the Board for a prospective problem regarding drinking and driving.

140. The Applicant stated to the Board that he would be willing to have conditions applied to the licence to mitigate the concerns of the local residents.

141. Recognizing the Applicant’s expressed willingness to address the Objectors’ concerns and responding to them, the Board has concluded that it would be appropriate to attach conditions to the licence.

142. For the stated reasons the Board does not feel that the issuing of a liquor licence to the Applicant is contrary to the public interest.

Order

143. For the above reasons, the Board APPROVES the application made by The Duke of Hillsburgh Inc, operating or intending to operate as THE DUKE OF HILLSBURGH TAVERN, 1 Anne Street, RR #1, Hillsburgh, Ontario, N0B 1Z0, establishment number 813866, for the indoor and outdoor areas of the premises, subject to compliance with all statutory conditions and municipal regulations.

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

Inside Licensed Area

1. Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday :

The sale and service of alcohol will cease at 10:00 p.m. All signs of service will be cleared by 10:45 p.m.

2. Thursday, Friday and Saturday:

The sale and service of alcohol will cease at 11:45 p.m. All signs of service will be cleared by 12:30 a.m. the following day.

3. All windows will be kept closed. The doors will be also kept closed except for normal entry and egress in order to deter noise.

4. The Licensee will ensure that patrons leave via the rear entrance after 10:00 p.m. on each evening of business and that signage is in place to advise patrons of this fact.

5. The Licensee will ensure surveillance equipment is operating both inside and outside the establishment. All video tapes will be held by the Licensee for a minimum of 30 days.

6. The Licensee will post signs encouraging patrons to smoke only outside at the rear of the establishment.

7. The Licensee shall post a prominent sign at each exit that reminds departing patrons to be considerate of the surrounding community.

Outside Licensed Area (patio):

1. Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday:

The sales and service of alcohol will cease at 10:00 p.m. All signs of service will be cleared by 10:45 pm.

2. Thursday, Friday and Saturday:

The sales and service will cease at 11:00 p.m. All signs of service shall be cleared by 11:45 p.m.

3. There shall be no amplified music on the outdoor licensed area or directed towards the outdoor licensed area.

DATED AT TORONTO, THIS 10^th day of November , 2009.

BERYL FORD, BOARD MEMBER ALEX MCCAULEY, BOARD MEMBER