Registrar, Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario v. 1015111 Ontario Limited o/a Club T’Zers, 2010 CanLII 80987

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-

1015111 Ontario Limited o/a Club T’Zers

Applicant

-and-

Joanne Schingh

Resident Objectors

DECISION

Panel: David C. Gavsie, Chair, AGCO S. Grace Kerr, Board Member

Decision Date: October 20, 2010

Hearing Location: Windsor, 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 ) Sandra Lucas, Representative

1015111 Ontario Limited, Applicant ) John P. Corrent, Representative

Joanne Schingh ) 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 18087 dated May 25, 2010 to review the application for a liquor licence for an additional licensed area made by 1015111 Ontario Limited (the “Applicant”), operating as or intending to operate as CLUB T’Zers, 1638 Drouillard Road, Windsor, Ontario, N8Y 2S3 (the “establishment” or the “premises”), establishment number 90044, on the basis the AGCO has received one or more written objections to the application. A hearing of the application was held on August 24, 2010 in the City of Windsor.

Decision

2After carefully considering all of the evidence at the hearing, together with the written submissions of the Applicant and the Resident Objectors, the Registrar taking no position in the matter, the Board APPROVES the application for an additional licensed area, that is, an outdoor patio with a capacity of forty (40) persons, on the conditions set out below. Reasons follow.

Other Matters

3Sandra Lucas appeared on behalf of the Registrar. She advised the Registrar took no position on the public interest aspects of the hearing.

4Joanne Schingh is a resident of the municipality and objects to the application for licence. She appeared before the Board on her own behalf and as the representative of the resident objectors listed in Schedule 1 to this decision. On consent of all parties, the Board ordered that Ms Schingh be made a party to the proceedings.

Resident Objectors’ Evidence

5Joanne Schingh, Yvonne Scott and Bruce Leach testified on behalf of the Resident Objectors.

6Ms Schingh, who lives three doors down from the establishment, has two main concerns regarding the application. One is about increased noise from the patio at night that awakens her. The patio is quiet during the day. It is an inconsistent problem: it happens sporadically.

7The bothersome noise is laughing, talking, and foul language. Music has not been a problem.

8There is also increased noise when motorcycles leave the establishment at closing time.

9Ms Schingh is also concerned that there will be more intoxicated patrons if the establishment’s patio is licensed.

10She acknowledged that a fence has been built around the patio so that she cannot see the patrons out there. However, she can still hear them.

11She also agreed that some noise attenuating steps have been taken by the establishment since its owner and managers met with the residents on April 5, 2010 (“the Residents’ meeting”). Particularly, the side doors are kept closed and the speakers have been turned in. She did not agree that the vents have been blocked.

12Ms Schingh also recalled that at the Residents’ meeting, the Applicant proposed that there would be regular surveillance of its lot by certain employees to ensure that the neighbours were not being disturbed by noise from the patio.

13Ms Schingh no longer hears music from inside the establishment, which is an improvement in noise levels from the establishment in the past year.

14Once, in the middle of the afternoon, a man on a motorcycle rode by Ms Schingh’s home 8 times within 3 hours.

15Ms Schingh agreed that the neighbourhood in which the establishment is located has a reputation for drug issues. Several crack houses may be located within the vicinity of the establishment and the homes of some of the other Resident Objectors.

16Ms Schingh agreed that at the Residents’ meeting the owner of the establishment said that there was a “zero tolerance” policy for drugs and intoxication at the establishment and that he would take immediate action against it if either was found.

17On occasion, she has seen the police in the neighbourhood as well as at the establishment. She did not know why they were at the establishment the last time she saw them there at about ten or eleven o’clock in the evening, about two weeks before the hearing.

18Ms Schingh has never called the municipal authorities or the police to complain about noise emanating from or drug use occurring at the establishment. She testified that she is afraid of repercussions from patrons of the establishment towards her and her son that would jeopardize their safety, were she to do so.

19Ms Scott, who lives just down from the establishment, testified that she has seen dancers for and patrons of the establishment smoke marijuana there. She knows this because she used to make clothes for the dancers and would come to the establishment to do fittings, once weekly for about a year. The last time she was a seamstress there was about one year ago. She was not an employee of the establishment.

20Ms Scott has also been maintaining her daughter’s property which backs onto the establishment’s back lot and has picked up empty beer bottles from there.

21Once, Ms Scott had some dancers and a patron sit on her property. They were drunk and they assaulted her. She called the police to have them removed. She is terrified they are going to come back and smash her windows.

22Ms Scott said that there is less noise emanating from the patio when the door is kept closed. When the door opens, she can hear the patrons giggling and laughing.

23She has seen the fellow on the motorcycle, as described by Ms Schingh, coming and going. He often uses the back alley behind her house.

24Ms Scott cannot sleep in the back room of her house, which faces the patio, because she’s bothered by the noise coming from there. The problem is mainly between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 2:00 a.m.

25About 10 times in the past year, Ms Scott has seen dancers go into patrons’ vehicles, parked in the establishment’s parking lot, and “smoke a joint”. She complained about this once and was told that her concern would be taken up with the owner. She has not complained to the police or municipal authorities, figuring they would not do anything about it as it was happening on private property.

26Ms Scott last saw the police at the establishment about three weeks before the hearing. They were escorting two people from the establishment.

27Ms Scott’s concern regarding the application is noise, particularly people going into or leaving from the establishment’s parking lot and squealing their tires, and people racing down the back alley behind her home.

28She does not have any other noise concerns besides those related to the patio and to traffic.

29Ms Scott stated that the alley behind her house belongs to the City of Windsor.

30Mr. Leach testified all of his concerns were basically covered in Ms Schingh’s and Ms Scott’s evidence.

31He said that an elementary school is located about 340 feet away from the establishment’s patio, on Alexis Street.

32He acknowledged that the establishment (that is, the hotel/bar) has quieted down, but not the patio, especially between the hours of 9:00 p.m. and 2:00 a.m. What he hears is hollering and screaming, especially late at night.

Applicant’s Evidence

33Chad Kotow, Peter Barth, Mark Bodechon and Adriano Campoli testified on behalf of the Applicant.

34Mr. Kotow lives about four houses down from the establishment, at a corner, and supports the application. He can see the parking lot of the establishment from his front yard. His elementary school-aged children attend the Catholic school, which is located about 4-5 blocks away from the establishment.

35Mr. Kotow said that he regularly picks up garbage, condoms and drug paraphernalia in the area. More or less once yearly, his car is scratched “by kids”.

36While the neighbourhood has improved over the 14 years that he has lived there, it still is not a great area: there are many “rowdy kids” and drug houses and drug use is taking place. The police attend the area regularly, they keep a post out at the corner where he lives.

37Mr. Kotow has gone to the establishment a few times to order food. He will have a drink and play pool while the food is being prepared. He testified that the establishment has not been disruptive to his lifestyle.

38Mr. Kotow has heard squealing tires where he lives relative to the establishment, too, but said that this noise cannot be pinpointed to the establishment.

39He also testified that there are a lot of motorcycles in the area, generally. About 30 homes located in the neighbourhood of his house have them. People drive up and down Cadillac Street on motorcycles on a regular basis.

40Mr. Kotow has not seen any drug dealing at the establishment, per se, although he has seen it take place in the neighbourhood.

41He has not heard foul language from the patio. He said that there is more noise in the neighbourhood generally between about 9 or 10 o’clock in the evening and 2:00 a.m. in the morning during the summer months, but there are other things that create noise. If he found that the noise was an issue, he would be the first one to call the police or to go to the bar to complain because of his children.

42Mr. Barth is the principal of the corporate Licensee/Applicant. He has run the establishment for 17 years. He has also owned another adult entertainment establishment for 26 years.

43Mr. Barth testified that most of the establishment’s patrons are either neighbours or auto workers.

44In December, 2009, the establishment received municipal approval to build a patio; construction was completed in May, 2010.

45He hopes that the local Fire Department will certify it for a capacity of 40 persons.

46The patio is surrounded by a 6-foot fence. It contains 4 picnic tables and is currently used for patrons who must go outside to smoke as well as for barbeques.

47When its licence was renewed, the establishment submitted a ‘compliance plan’ for approval by the AGCO, which was accepted. The compliance plan includes house rules that have been explained to all of the managers, the bartenders and the bouncers.

48The concerns raised at the Residents’ meeting have been made known to the managers and doormen to ensure that problems do not happen again, if indeed they happened in the past.

49It is important to the establishment that the patio be licensed so that patrons can bring alcoholic beverages outside when they go out to smoke, that is, for their convenience. As well, his patrons like to sit outside in the nice weather and have a drink.

50He decided to hold the Residents’ meeting after reading the letters sent in objecting to the application. About 20 people attended the meeting, which was held in a location about 3 blocks from the establishment.

51Most of the concerns expressed by the residents in attendance had nothing to do with the application to license the patio: for example, they were about cars driving by the residents’ homes, or about police presence in the neighbourhood. Nevertheless, he talked with his managers to make sure that the establishment was not the cause of the residents’ concerns.

52Mr. Barth said that the establishment obtained a Special Occasion Permit for a fund-raising event that was held on the patio. The band stopped playing at 10 o’clock. He decided that, in the future, he will advise the establishment’s neighbours in advance of any fund-raisers held.

53Mr. Barth does not condone drug use, either by patrons or employees of the establishment. Employees are suspended or fired if found to have used drugs. Mr. Barth personally attends the bar randomly to ensure that staff members are doing what they are supposed to be doing. There are also in-door surveillance cameras to monitor the premises.

54A crack house is located nearby the establishment; the police attend there about 3 times a month. The occupants of this house also have dogs in the backyard and have vandalized the vehicles of patrons of the establishment. Mr. Barth believes that the neighbours’ fears relate to the people who live in the crack house.

55Mr. Barth had some of his employees canvass the neighbourhood about a month before the hearing, trying to get some of the objectors to change their minds.

56To that end, he introduced himself and his manager and reminded them of what the establishment had done to try and address their concerns: the establishment had been sound-proofed; the music “stays inside”; a 6-foot high, city-approved fence was built around the patio; managers have been trained to be more sensitive to the establishment’s neighbours; customers are barred from making loud noise; there is to be no over-crowding of the patio; and, the inside and outside of the property is constantly supervised by the establishment’s bouncers and servers.

57Some of the neighbours canvassed changed from being objectors to supporters of the application; others, including Ms Schingh, did not change their minds.

58Mr. Bodechon is a full-time employee of the establishment and has been its day-manager for the past 3 years. His hours are 11:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday.

59The police have seldom attended the establishment during the hours Mr. Bodechon works. A police officer came in about 3 weeks ago, looking for a man who had allegedly fought with his wife. The police also attended the establishment about 3 months ago when there was a home invasion in the house located next door to it.

60As a result of concerns raised at the Residents’ meeting, which 28 neighbours attended, the establishment has moved the interior speakers from the exterior walls to inside walls, put sound-deadening insulation into and plywood over the smoking vents; and, developed protocols aimed at trying to be more understood by the neighbourhood.

61An example of such a protocol is that approximately every 30-45 minutes, an employee will circle the property to make sure that everything is okay. In the evenings, this routine is followed about every 15 minutes.

62The purposes of this protocol is to provide basic security and property protection, to ensure that there is no loitering on the property, and more generally, to help keep the neighbourhood safe.

63Mr. Bodechon has never witnessed any drug use in the establishment’s parking lot.

64He has never witnessed rowdy or disorderly patrons in the establishment, although once the police attended in the neighbourhood to attend to some disorderly neighbours.

65Mr. Bodechon believes that the motorcycle Ms Schingh and Ms Scott observed driving by frequently belongs to a neighbour who repairs and builds “choppers”. He said that these are loud, obnoxious motorcycles and that the neighbour drives them around the neighbourhood a lot.

66Mr. Bodechon said that the establishment’s house rules have always been strict, but the establishment is willing to address the neighbours’ concerns nevertheless. Since the Residents’ meeting, one neighbour has come twice with concerns (once, to have a fence post repaired, and another time, to ask them to repair her mini-van which she alleged had been damaged by a patron of the establishment), both of which will be dealt with quickly and satisfactorily. On neither occasion did this neighbour raise noise concerns.

67The neighbour to the north of the establishment likes the patio because it keeps the patrons contained.

68The walls make the patio look like a quiet area.

69Mr. Campoli is also a full-time employee of the establishment. He is the night manager.

70As part of his job-related responsibilities, he does outside surveillance of the establishment about every 20-30 minutes. His doormen assist in doing this task.

71He has called the police twice to help him with situations at the establishment that he could not handle on his own. Sometimes, the police have waited outside the establishment to do random checks for patrons who might try to drive after drinking.

72Mr. Campoli testified that if he hears talking or laughing from patrons on the patio, he calms them down so that there won’t be excessive noise. He does not believe that the noise from the patio is excessive enough for the neighbours to hear.

73The people in attendance at the Residents’ meeting raised two main concerns: noise on the street when the patrons were leaving, and drugs. The attendees were told that drugs were never allowed in the establishment to begin with.

74Since that meeting, the establishment’s staff members have tried to be more neighbourhood-conscious. The goal is to keep the neighbours happy so that they will come in to the establishment.

75If the patio were to become licensed, the staff would ensure that noise levels are kept down. He, as well as the servers, would monitor it.

Resident Objectors’ Submissions

76After hearing all of the evidence at the hearing, the Resident Objectors submit that they are still opposed to the application.

77The Resident Objectors are concerned that they will continue to hear loud noises at late hours of the night if the patio was licensed. They also assert that, if the patio is licensed, more people will drink outside, adding to the noise.

78As well, they are concerned that the establishment, which is an adult entertainment club, is close to an elementary school. They are working class citizens and taxpayers who wish to live in a quiet neighbourhood.

79The Resident Objectors appreciate the efforts the establishment has made to date to build a fence around the patio and to sound proof the establishment with respect to music played inside of it. They do not feel that the establishment has lived up to its ‘house rules’ which are supposedly aimed at protecting the neighbours.

Applicant’s Submissions

80The Applicant argues that, pursuant to clause 6(2)(h) of the LLA, the Applicant has a conditional right to a licence. The onus lies with the Resident Objectors to prove that granting the application would not be against the “public interest”, having regard to the needs and wishes of the residents of the municipality in which the establishment is located.

81The Applicant also submits that the Board must look to the totality of the evidence in order to determine whether the residents’ subjective concerns and fears are supported on a valid, objective basis.

82In terms of the evidence in this hearing, the Applicant submits that the written objections (Exhibit 1) predate the Residents’ meeting. As a result of the concerns raised by the neighbours at that meeting, the Applicant:

• Undertook soundproofing measures within the establishment, including relocation of speakers and insulating and blocking smoking vents;
• Improved procedures, protocols and house rules, intended to train employees at all levels to be sensitive to the neighbourhood;
• Constructed a 6-foot privacy fence around the patio, intended to hide smokers from the neighbours’ sight and to reduce noise emanating from the patio; and,
• Undertook to give neighbours advanced written notice of any charitable events to take place on the patio.

83The establishment has been a tavern in the neighbourhood for over 30 years, well before many of the Resident Objectors took up residence there.

84Mr. Kotow’s evidence suggests that Drouillard Road and Cadillac Street, both in the vicinity of the establishment, have high traffic volumes and are often travelled by loud motorcycles, many of which are owned by neighbouring residents.

85A “crack house” is located directly south of the establishment, on Drouillard Road and causes many disturbances requiring police attendances.

86Mr. Bodechon and Mr. Campoli each testified that there have been only several times in the past two years when the police were called to the establishment, every time at their initiative rather than that of the neighbours.

87The Applicant suggests that the Resident Objectors’ concerns regarding noise are exaggerated, given that in the viva voce testimony the Resident Objectors’ witnesses each remarked that the fence built to surround the patio has reduced noise as well as the visibility to them of smokers.

88The Applicant submits that granting a licence for the patio will not increase any illicit drug or sex trade that may already be occurring in the neighbourhood.

89Any empty beer bottles, syringes or other garbage the neighbours find on their lawns cannot be blamed on the establishment since it does not permit the consumption of alcoholic beverages outside of the establishment and the premises (both inside and outside) are regularly supervised against such behaviour.

90Mr. Barth, the owner of the establishment, has 30 years’ experience in successfully operating two licensed establishments in the community. He recognizes the importance of the neighbours to the success of his business. It is contrary to the best interests of his business to allow the unacceptable activities described in Ms Schingh’s and Ms Scott’s evidence.

91The Applicant’s evidence shows that there are also neighbours who support the application.

92The Applicant would agree to a condition on the patio licence, restricting its hours of operation as follows:

• Sunday – Thursday: 11:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.; and,
• Friday and Saturday: 11:00 a.m. to 1:00 a.m.

Registrar’s Submissions

93As the Registrar takes no position in this matter, no submissions were made.

Reasons, Analysis and Decision

94The Board has carefully reviewed the evidence and the submissions of the parties and approves the application, subject to conditions being placed on the licence, for the following reasons.

95First, by way of background, the Board confirms that clause 6(2)(h) of the LLA provides, in essence, that an application for a licence shall be granted unless it can be shown that it is not in the public interest to do so having regard to the needs and wishes of the residents of the municipality in which the premises are located. In other words, as the Applicant rightly submits, an applicant has a qualified right to a licence: the onus lies upon the objectors to an application to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that approval of a licence is not in the public’s interest.

96To this end, the Board must assess the totality of the evidence to determine whether the subjective concerns of the objectors are supported on a valid and objective basis. Each case turns on its own facts.

97In this case, the Board heard testimony from three witnesses on behalf of the Resident Objectors who urge that the Application be denied. All of them live about 3 - 4 houses from the establishment. Their main complaint, objection or concern relates to noise emanating from the patio, particularly between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 2:00 a.m., which keeps them awake or awakens them at night. They fear that this noise will get worse if the patio becomes licensed.

98The three witnesses on behalf of the Resident Objectors also expressed concerns about loud motorcycles driving by as well as in and around the neighbourhood, which increases at closing time.

99The evidence establishes that the Objectors have not complained to local authorities or the police about the noise related to the patio. There was no evidence that any noise-related charges have been laid against the establishment by any public authority.

100That said, in response to the neighbours’ objections to this application a neighbourhood meeting, ultimately attended by about 28 people, was convened in April of this year specifically to address the neighbours’ concern.

101The Applicant denies that excessive noise emanates from the patio and points to protocols that are in operation and effect to ensure that it will not become a problem, even if the patio is licensed.

102The Board concludes that ‘noise’ is an objective risk to be taken into account in considering this Application.

103The Board acknowledges that, if only from a common sense perspective, crowd noise could increase from a licensed patio with a capacity of 40 persons. However, several factors minimize or negate this as an objective risk and favour granting the application, as follow.

104In his testimony, Mr. Barth, on behalf of the corporate Applicant, stated that the Applicant wants to be a good neighbour to the Resident Objectors. This statement is credible because the Applicant has acted on this promise in several ways to date, as supported by the evidence.

105For example, he initiated the Residents’ meeting to provide a forum for the establishment’s neighbours to come and express their concerns to him.

106Since that meeting, and signifying his bona fides, Mr. Barth took various steps (more particularly described in paragraphs 56, 60-62, 70, 72, 74 and 75 of this Decision, above) to address the neighbours’ noise concerns.

107As additional evidence of the Applicant’s intention to be a “good Licensee”, the Applicant has filed a compliance plan with the Registrar of the AGCO. That plan has been approved by the Registrar. It sets out a variety of policies and protocols which the Applicant has committed to follow in order to comply with its responsibilities as a Licensee pursuant to the LLA and its Regulations.

108The Resident Objectors testified about noise that comes from squealing tires from motorcycles and other vehicles when patrons leave the establishment at closing time.

109In contrast, Mr. Kotow, who is also a neighbour, testified that squealing tires is a common problem in the neighbourhood generally and that this behaviour cannot be pinpointed to the establishment specifically. As well, Mr. Bodechon told the Board about a neighbour who builds and repairs “choppers”, which he said are “loud, obnoxious” machines. This neighbour apparently likes to drive them around the neighbourhood.

110In the Applicant’s evidence, both Mr. Barth and Mr. Campoli acknowledged that this was one of the noise concerns that the residents raised at the Residents’ meeting; however, Mr. Barth disagreed that it was a problem connected to the establishment or, more specifically, to the application to license the patio.

111Mr. Barth, Mr. Bodechon and Mr. Campoli all testified that, nevertheless, the establishment wants to be neighbourhood-friendly and that it will take steps to try and ensure that this type of vehicular noise is not caused by patrons of the establishment. The Board accepts this evidence for a couple of reasons.

112Again, it notes the Applicant’s positive response to the Residents’ concerns raised at the Residents’ meeting (see paragraph 106 above). Also, it relies on Mr. Barth’s lengthy, positive experience as a Licensee (see paragraph 115 below).

113For all of the foregoing reasons, the Board concludes that the Residents’ subjective concern that excessive noise will emanate from the patio, once it is licensed, does not have an objective basis in fact.

114Further, the Board cannot ignore that there is community support for the Application (as exemplified by Mr. Kotow’s evidence generally, and as noted in paragraph 57 (Mr. Barth’s testimony) and paragraph 67 (Mr. Bodechon’s testimony) specifically. In other words, the evidence of community support for this application also weighed positively in the Board’s decision.

115Further, the Board has taken into account that the Applicant is a long-standing business in the community. The manager, Mr. Barth, has a responsible and long-standing work history which he brings to the business. The Board believes that this is a conscientious Applicant, and that its owner and managers will be diligent and considerate of the needs and wishes of the neighbourhood/community.

116As well, in making its decision the Board has considered positively the condition which the Applicant proposes could be added to the licence, both for its content and its symbolic value.

117Finally, in coming to its decision the Board also considered Ms Scott’s evidence that she saw illicit drugs, that is, marijuana, being used by dancers while they were in the establishment. This is a serious allegation, and if it is true, it could be a serious public interest concern.

118Mr. Barth, however, denies that drugs are allowed onto or being used in the premises. Both of his managers confirm that there is a strict policy against drug use in the establishment.

119The Registrar has not raised this issue as a concern in these proceedings.

120Ms Scott, Mr. Barth, Mr. Bodechon and Mr. Campoli all appeared to be credible witnesses. Each of them gave their evidence in a straightforward manner, answered the questions put to them simply and without embellishment, and did not falter in cross-examination.

121However, the Board is unable to find, on the balance of probabilities, that drug use did in fact take place in the establishment for these reasons: the evidence in that regard was conflicted; and, it was not raised as a concern in any of the Objectors’ letters (Exhibit 1).

122Therefore, the Board concludes that the unproven allegations of drug use within the establishment is not an objective risk to be taken into account in this matter.

123That said, there was essentially unanimous evidence before the Board that drugs are a problem more generally in the neighbourhood in which this establishment is located. It is important, therefore, for this establishment to be particularly vigilant in implementing and following policies, practices and protocols that would help to guard against illicit drugs coming into and being used in the establishment.

124The possibility of adding one or more conditions to a licence is consistent with the concept of “Risk-based Licensing”, now operational in the Province of Ontario, and is believed to help the Applicant minimize risks identified during the application process. The Board believes that the conditions it has decided to add in the case of this Application should alleviate, in whole or in part, the Objectors’ concerns about licensing the patio.

125For all of these reasons, the Board finds that it has not been shown that it is not in the public interest to grant this Application having regard to the needs and wishes of the residents of the municipality in which the premises are located. Accordingly, the Board grants this application, but attaches conditions to the licence, as set out below.

Order

126Subject to the conditions set out below, the Board APPROVES the application for a liquor licence for an additional licensed area by 1015111 Ontario Limited, operating as or intending to operate as CLUB T’ZERS, 1638 Drouillard Road, Windsor, Ontario, N8Y 2S3, establishment number 90044, and subject to compliance with all statutory conditions and municipal regulations.

127Further, the Board ORDERS that the following conditions be attached to the licence:

1. From Sunday through Thursday, inclusive, the sale and service of liquor shall end at 10:00 p.m. on the outdoor licensed area and the area shall be cleared of all signs of service by 10:45 p.m. at which time the outdoor licensed area shall be closed;

2. On Fridays and Saturdays, the sale and service of liquor shall end at 12 midnight on the outdoor licensed area and on each of these days the area shall be cleared of all signs of service by 12:45 a.m. (that is, early Saturday morning and early Sunday morning, respectively) at which time the outdoor licensed area shall be closed;

3. The capacity of the outdoor licensed area shall be limited to a maximum of forty (40) persons;

4. There shall be no live or amplified music played on the patio;

5. The Licensee shall make every reasonable effort to ensure that patrons using the patio do not make excessive noise;

6. The Licensee shall post a prominent sign at each of the establishment’s exits and on the patio that reminds and/or encourages patrons to be considerate of the surrounding community; and,

7. The Licensee shall provide a telephone number for residents to register concerns or complaints. This line will normally be answered by a staff member during the Licensee’s published hours of operation. This line will be equipped with a functioning answering service for those periods when the Licensee’s staff are otherwise occupied and when the establishment is closed.

DATED AT TORONTO, THIS 20th day of October, 2010.

DAVID C. GAVSIE, CHAIR, AGCO S. GRACE KERR, BOARD MEMBER

Schedule 1

1. Jaime Pickens 2, Kelly Zeray
2. Ljubomir Bobic
3. Craig Kennedy
4. Mrs. Beryl Arrand
5. Connie Machin
6. Debbie Percy
7. Carmelle Dubois
8. R. Machin
9. Carol Pinnegar
10. & 12. Guy & Diane Fontaine
11. Angela Lindsey
12. Lauren Lindsey
13. Sandra Moskaluk
14. John Trolot
15. & 17. Randy & Maureen Iliffe
16. Joanne Schingh
17. Mrs. Y. Scott
18. George Voros
19. Mary Katherine Fox 22,. Katie Vellinga
20. Carl Peltier
21. J.P. Latreille
22. & 26. Gregory McIntosh & Judy Lund
23. Carol Barrette
24. Louise Barrette
25. John R. Sleziak
26. Kati
27. Julia Saruna
28. Annalise Kryzuniwskj
29. Claire Carriere
30. James W. Owen
31. Judy Lund
32. & 37. Larry & Gwen Simpson
33. A. Hewson
34. & 40. Gail & Bruce Leach
35. Lisa Scott