Registrar, Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario v. 1701243 Ontario Inc., 2010 CanLII 80954

IN THE MATTER OF The:

Liquor Licence Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. L.19, as amended

Registrar, Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario

Registrar

-and-

1701243 Ontario Inc., operating as Sugar Lounge

Licensee

DECISION

Panel: David C. Gavsie, Chair, AGCO Eleanor Meslin, Board Member

Decision Date: December 8, 2010

Hearing Location: Toronto, Ontario

Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario 90 Sheppard Avenue East, Suite 300 Toronto, Ontario 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

1701243 Ontario Inc., Licensee ) Michael Boothe, Representative

Allegations

A hearing into Notice of Proposal (“NOP”) number 16547 dated August 8, 2008 to revoke liquor licence number 24153 (the “licence”) issued to 1701243 Ontario Inc. (the “Licensee”), operating as SUGAR LOUNGE, 1085 Bellamy Road North, Units 4, 5 & 6, Scarborough, Ontario, M1H 3C7, on the basis of alleged violations of section 6 and subsection 16(1) of the Liquor Licence Act (the “LLA”) and section 54(1)(a) of Ontario Regulation 719/90 (the “O.Reg”) made pursuant to the LLA, was held on November 26, 2010 in the City of Toronto.

Exhibits

The following exhibits were placed before the Board:

a) Exhibit 1 – Agreed Statement of Facts dated November 26, 2010 (attached)

b) Exhibit A – Decision of the Board dated March 6, 2008 regarding the Licensee

c) Exhibit B – transcripts of the hearing before the Board regarding the Licensee held on March 3, 2008

Reasons

Pooran Kris Boodhan falsely identified himself, on the liquor licence application, as the sole officer, director and shareholder, when Andy Nan, Innis Frederick and Krishna Samoojh were investors and part owners at the time (Exhibit 1 – paragraph 1).
In the Agreed Statement of Facts attached to the Board decision dated March 6, 2008, paragraph 1, Mr. Boodham admitted that he had given investigators three promissory notes, falsely indicating that the partners were only investors.
In the Agreed Statement of Facts attached to the Board’s Decision dated March 6, 2008, at paragraph 1, Mr. Boodham indicated he had bought out two partners and the third partner would apply for a transfer to correct the corporate structure. In paragraph 5 of Exhibit 1, it is indicated that none of the three investors/partners wished to have their names added to the licence. They “simply wish to be repaid”. However, on November 26, 2010, none of these three people had been repaid.
At the hearing of November 26, 2010, after questioning, the representative for Mr. Boodham told the Board that although he said the premises had been listed for sale. In fact on further questioning, it was evident there had been no “for sale” listing for the premises.

Findings

Based on the following reasons, the Board finds that there has been a breach of section 6(2)(d) of the LLA.
The Exhibits, including the Agreed Statement of Facts marked as Exhibit #1, show a pattern of dishonesty and lack of integrity by Mr. Boodham that affords reasonable grounds to believe that the Licensee’s business will not be carried on in accordance with the law and with integrity and honesty.
During the hearing, there was a further attempt to mislead the Board that the premises had been listed for sale, so that the proceeds from the sale could be used to pay off the investors/creditors. In fact, the Board was told, by the Licensee’s representative, after questioning, that there is no such sale listing.
As a result, the Board finds, as alleged by the Registrar in NOP number 16547, that the Licensee has breached section 6(2)(d) of the LLA. Further, in the Agreed Statement of Facts, the Licensee admitted to breaching paragraph 54(1)(a) of the O.Reg.
In light of the Board’s findings with respect to section 6 of the LLA and section 54(1)(a) of the O.Reg, it is not necessary to deal with the allegation dealing with a contravention of section 16(1) of the LLA.

Board Decision

Therefore, liquor licence number 24153 issued to 1701243 Ontario Inc. operating as SUGAR LOUNGE, 1085 Bellamy Road North, Units 4, 5 & 6, Scarborough, Ontario, M1H 3C7 is REVOKED.

DATED AT TORONTO THIS 8th DAY OF December , 2010.

DAVID C. GAVSIE, CHAIR, AGCO ELEANOR MESLIN, BOARD MEMBER

Attached

IN THE MATTER OF THE LIQUOR LICENCE ACT

R.S.O. 1990, C. L. 19, S. 15(1) AND 21(1);

AND IN THE MATTER OF THE LIQUOR LICENCE OF 1701243 ONTARIO INC. OPERATING AS SUGAR LOUNGE, 1085 BELLAMY ROAD NORTH, UNITS 4, 5, AND 6, SCARBOROUGH

LICENCE NUMBER 24153

AND IN THE MATTER OF A NOTICE OF PROPOSAL ISSUED AUGUST 8, 2008

AGREED STATEMENT OF FACTS

The licensee, after consultation with an agent, and the Registrar agree to the following facts:

On Nov. 3, 2006, a liquor licence was issued to 1701243 Ontario Inc. operating as Sugar Lounge. The application falsely identified Pooran Kris Boodhan as the sole officer, director and shareholder. In fact, at the time, Andy Nan, Innis Frederick and Krishna Samoojh had also invested money in the business and were part owners.
On Dec. 10, 2007, the Registrar issued a Notice of Proposal to revoke the licence for providing false information.
On March 6, 2008, the Board accepted an Agreed Statement of Facts and Joint Submission on Disposition suspending the licence for 21 days on the basis of a breach of s. 6(2)(e) of the Liquor Licence Act. The Licensee agreed that he had failed to disclose his three partners and presented investigators with 3 promissory notes which falsely indicated that the partners were mere investors. Annexed hereto and marked as Exhibit A and B are the Agreed Statement of Facts and Joint Submission on Disposition and the transcript of proceedings respectively.
The Licensee also indicated that he had shown remorse and had bought out two partners and that the third partner would apply for a transfer to correct the corporate structure. These representations were false. The Licensee had not and still has not bought out the other partners.
At this time, none of the partners wish to have their names added to the corporate structure or the licence and simply wish to be repaid their investment. The Licensee claims not to be able to repay them. The licence still does not reflect the true corporate relationship of the partners.
Based on paragraphs 1-5, the Licensee and in particular Pooran Kris Boodhan breached s. 6(2)(d) of the Liquor Licence Act.
On May 10, 2008, the Licensee was unable to provide inspectors with liquor sales receipts, invoices or cash register tape.
Based on paragraph 7, the Licensee breached s. 54(1) of Ont. Reg 719/90.

DATED AT TORONTO THIS 26TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2010.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

Pooran Kris Boodhan Phillip Morris

For licensee Registrar’s Counsel