Registrar, Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario v. 1654642 Ontario Inc., 2011 CanLII 19771

ALCOHOL AND GAMING COMMISSION OF ONTARIO

IN THE MATTER OF The: Liquor Licence Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. L.19, as amended

BETWEEN:

Registrar, Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario (Registrar)

-and-

1654642 Ontario Inc. operating as Burwell’s Cove Restaurant & Bar (Licensee)

DECISION ON FINDINGS

Panel: David C. Gavsie, Former Chair Kirsti Hunt, Vice-Chair

Decision Date: March 28, 2011 Hearing Location: London, 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: Aviva Harari, Representative 1654642 Ontario Inc., Licensee: Ning Mao, On behalf of the Corporate Licensee

Allegations

1A hearing into Notice of Proposal number 17828 dated January 19, 2010 to suspend liquor licence number 20976 (the “licence”) issued to 1654642 Ontario Inc. (the “Licensee”) operating as BURWELL’S COVE RESTAURANT & BAR (the “establishment” or the “premises”), 33 Robinson Street, Port Burwell, Ontario, N0J 1T0 on the basis of alleged violations of section 29 and subsection 30(4) of the Liquor Licence Act (the “LLA”) and subsections 41(1) and 45(1) of Ontario Regulation 719/90 (the “O.Reg”) made pursuant to the LLA was held on January 6, 2011 in the City of London.

Decision

2The Board FINDS the Licensee contravened the allegations of violations of subsection 30(4) of the LLA and subsection 41(1) of the “O.Reg”. Reasons follow.

Preliminary Matters

3Ning Mao appeared on behalf of the corporate Licensee and waived his right to a representative.

4The Board ordered the exclusion of witnesses on consent of parties.

Registrar’s Evidence

5TM gave evidence that he is in grade 9 at East Elgin Secondary School in Stratherville. On August 1, 2009 he attended Tub Days at the beach in Port Burwell. He went to Burwell’s Cove Restaurant & Bar with MS but was unsure at what time but said probably around 6 p.m. It was dark outside. On entering the patio, he got a stamp on his hand that he believed was by someone who worked there. No one asked him for identification. He had an alcoholic drink there but it was not served to him. He could not remember what kind of drink it was or how much he had to drink.

6On cross-examination, he explained that he does not drink alcohol every day. The police stopped him because he was drinking in the bar. No one served him. He got his drink from his friend MS. The doorman gave him the stamp on his hand. He did not know how many people were working there but there were quite a few people on the patio.

7On redirect, he stated that he got on the patio through a gate, at the side of the building where a person was giving people a stamp on the hand. That person did not ask him any questions. He stamped his hand. He identified MS whom he believed was 19-years-old. He sat on the patio with MS and MS got an alcoholic drink from inside and brought it back for him. He did not notice if there was any staff working on the patio. He was there for maybe an hour watching the band. He had just one drink.

8In response to questions by the Board, TM stated that he was 13-years-old at the time. He did not have anything to drink before going to the bar. He did not have any identification with him. He told the police his name and age.

9Lorraine Simpson has been an AGCO Inspector for 20 years. She attended at the premises on August 1, 2009 at 10:42 p.m. It was a Saturday night. That weekend, the Optimist Club sponsored Tub Days, a three day event at the beach in Port Burwell. It was held under a Special Occasion Permit. Around 5000 people attended the event. There were fireworks and the event closed at 10 p.m.

10Burwell’s Cove is around ¼ mile from where the event was being held. What first drew her attention to the establishment was loud noise and music from their patio. She walked up to the premises. There were two security people on the patio. She identified herself with her badge and staff asked her for a $5.00 cover charge. Upon being asked his name, he said it was AB and he said it was his first day on the job. The other person working with him was JS and they worked for On Site Security and Patrol. She later spoke to the owner of On Site Security and Patrol. Neither the security company nor its personnel are certified.

11On the patio, she observed three people whom she had seen at the Tub Days event.

12Patron 1 was a male with a beard, brown hair with a ball hat and jeans. He was refused entry at the bar tent at Tub Days due to his level of intoxication. She observed this while standing outside the tent about an hour before going to Burwell’s Cove. She observed Patron 1 on the patio at Burwell’s Cove consuming from a bottle of Molson beer. When police officers arrived, they spoke to Patron 1 who said that he lived next door to Burwell’s Cove.

13Patron 2 was a young male whom she had also observed at Tub Days sitting with two other males. He was very young looking, clean cut with a ball cap and baggy jeans. She spoke to the police officer at Burwell’s Cove who identified the male as TM who was 13-years-old.

14He appeared intoxicated. He was one of the people refused entry at Tub Days. She spoke to him and he had an odour of alcohol on his breath. He was unsteady on his feet and when he spoke to the officer, he slurred his speech. He had a stamp on his hand. The stamp represented entry to Burwell’s Cove after paying the $5.00 cover charge. She herself did not pay it or get a stamp.

15Patron 3 was identified as MS. He was tall wearing a ball hat and jeans. He was sitting with TM and he was intoxicated. There were many beer bottles on the table in front of him. She observed him drinking from a bottle of Molson’s beer.

16She had observed him at Tub Days when he and TM tried to get in and were refused entry because he was intoxicated and TM was a minor. She recalled that he could not walk properly. He had a glazed look, was unsteady on his feet and had alcohol on his breath. That was an hour earlier.

17The establishment was licensed to serve alcohol until 2:00 a.m. There were around 250 people in the premises. Many had been at Tub Days consuming alcohol during the all day event. There were a lot of broken beer bottles on the patio. A security person asked her for assistance, asked what he should do. She told him to remove all the intoxicated patrons.

18She spoke to Zhaorong Meng, the owner, about the young male in the establishment who had been consuming an alcoholic beverage and the two other intoxicated patrons on the patio. The owner was going to serve until 12:30 a.m. but changed her mind and shut down at 11:15 p.m. She said she was not going to be open on Sunday. The Inspector told Ms Meng that she would make a report to the Deputy Registrar and that there could possibly be charges.

19Outside the establishment police, whom she called, picked up TM, MS and the other male. People went out to see what was going on.

20Patron 4 was a male with black hair, striped shirt and shorts. He had been observed on the patio and was also identified at Tub Days. Around midnight, the Inspector observed him stumbling and staggering away with his friends. While on the sidewalk, he was obnoxious. He complained to the Inspector and police officers about them shutting down the bar.

21Patron 5 was intoxicated. He was standing outside on the sidewalk. He had long hair, no shirt and blue shorts. He had red eyes and was staggering. He was slurring his words while he was “mouthing” to the officers. She had seen him at Burwell’s Cove drinking beer and had seen him earlier at Tub Days.

22The Inspector said that she had called police when she first arrived. She spoke to Sergeant Jason Belanger who was her contact if something happened. He dispatched the officers. She and the officers left the scene around 12:30 a.m.

23On cross-examination, Inspector Simpson stated that the Licensee had hired a security company “On Site Security and Patrol” to work the door that night. A security person asked her to pay to get in.

24She identified many intoxicated patrons who were refused entry to Tub Days and she identified some of them at Burwell’s Cove. The establishment is a restaurant and bar with an inside and an outside licensed area. There were a lot of people on the patio and she identified two staff members for sure.

25On being questioned by the Board, Inspector Simpson stated that she was at the beer tent at Tub Days from around 6:30 or 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. when the event closed. She went to Burwell’s Cove around 10:45 p.m.

26She saw Patrons 1, 2, and 3 being turned away from Tub Days and she did not see them consuming there. She saw Patron 1 and 2 at Tub Days about an hour before she saw them at Burwell’s Cove. Patrons 4 and 5 were in Burwell’s Cove before they came out to the sidewalk.

27There was a large service bar inside and patrons had to go inside to get alcohol.

28She asked security how many people were present and they said that there were 250 people. The occupancy load is not combined but there are separate areas. The inside is licensed for 146 persons and the outside for 144 persons.

29She asked for the licence holder and Zhaorong Meng came to talk to her.

30She observed TM pick up a beer bottle and drink from it before she called police.

31On being asked why TM was young looking, the Inspector stated that he was clean shaven. Based on her experience he did not look 19 years of age. She would not have put him past 15 years of age.

32She could recollect seeing only two security personnel. One was called Andrew and the other she thought was Sherman. The latter asked her what they should do and she spoke to him about the capacity.

33When she called police, they arrived quickly. She did not know if they laid any charges.

34P.C. Troy Carlson has been with the OPP for 20 years. He attended Burwell’s Cove on August 1, 2009 in response to a request from Inspector Simpson. She had observed violations of the LLA and asked for police attendance. He was with a volunteer ride-along officer that night.

35Upon arrival, he spoke to Inspector Simpson about her observations while they were on the balcony overlooking the patio. She pointed out three patrons on the patio who were in violation of the LLA. She also mentioned observing them earlier at the beach. They went down to speak to the patrons who were close together.

36He spoke to an adult male who identified himself as JB with a date of birth of February 20, 1982. He was one of the people pointed out by Inspector Simpson. He was highly intoxicated. He had blood shot eyes and slurred speech. He was very unsteady on his feet and his movements were slow and he had to concentrate when he moved. JB was belligerent when he was advised that he had to leave because he was intoxicated. He disagreed and the officer told him that if he did not leave he would be arrested. JB had a beer which he wanted to finish but the officer told him that he couldn’t do that.

37While P.C. Carlson was speaking to JB he was also speaking to the other two patrons at the same time. One was MS with a birth date of November 20, 1989. The other patron was younger and he said that he was 13 years old and that he had been drinking. He asked MS and the 13 year old to exit the patio because JB became a priority. They left.

38JB began to posture, taking a fighting stance with clenched fists. It appeared that he wanted to fight. Other patrons began to question the officer about why JB had to leave. The situation became volatile. However, he was able to talk JB out of the establishment. He said that he lived near by and was not driving so he was allowed to leave with no charges laid. The officer received an unrelated call and left.

39P.C. Bradley Derrough has been an OPP officer for four years. He attended at Burwell’s Cove on August 1, 2009 at around 11:15 p.m. during the Tub Days weekend. He was conducting a RIDE program with another officer when they were called to assist an AGCO Inspector.

40On his arrival, there were a large number of people at Burwell’s Cove. P.C. Carlson was already in the bar. He and P.C. Longworth were in on the sidewalk in front of the bar. He observed two males exit from the patio. Both appeared under 19 years of age. Unbeknownst to the officer, P.C. Carlson had asked them to leave. P.C. Derrough asked them if they were in the bar and they denied it.

41One of the males looked really young. He was short with no facial hair. He looked to be about 13 years old. He appeared to be intoxicated. He had glossy eyes and slurred speech. He concentrated on his words as he spoke. It was determined that he had been on the patio. When asked for identification, the male said that he had none. He identified himself verbally as TM with a Stratherville address which the officer confirmed on the police system. During conversation with TM, the officer could smell alcohol on his breath. When asked if he had been drinking, TM first denied it but then said that he had had two sips of a drink.

42To prove that TM was lying to him, the officer asked for a sample for a roadside test. TM blew .043 which is more than two sips. If he had been driving, he would have blown just under an alert.

43TM was with a male who was 19 years old and left in his care.

44P.C. Katherine Longworth has been with the OPP since 2001 and been a police officer since 1997. On August 1, 2009, she was on a RIDE program when she got a radio call at 11:15 p.m. to attend at Burwell’s Cove to assist AGCO Inspector Simpson. When she and P.C. Derrough arrived there were a number of people outside the premises. The call had been about under-aged drinkers and when she observed two males who didn’t look 19-years-old leaving the patio, she approached them. They identified themselves verbally as TM and MS. There was an odour of alcohol emanating from them. They said they had not been drinking. She did not deal with MS. She spoke with TM who had bloodshot eyes, slightly slurred speech and he was trying to enunciate his words. Both admitted that they entered the premises and got a stamp from the security guard without having to show identification.

45TM did not appear 19-years-old. He was 13-years-old. His demeanour was not that of an adult. He was a child. Before leaving, he retrieved his bicycle, which is not the normal behaviour for an adult.

46He first said that he had had no alcohol and then that he had had a couple of sips. P.C. Derrough ran an alcohol test on him.

Licensee’s Evidence

47Lu Zhang stated that she had been working on August 1, 2009 as a bartender. She had four years of experience and had previously worked at Nicki’s Pizza Bar on King Street in Toronto. She had her Smart Serve certification. She had worked at Burwell’s Cove for one month before this date. She did not see TM. She would have noticed him because he looks so young.

48There is only one service bar in the premises. That night there were three people working at the service bar and three security people as well.

49Around 10:30 p.m. the Inspector came in. She heard that the police found a 13-year-old in the premises who had a stamp. Security was supposed to be checking identification at the door. The rule that night was that no one under 19-years-old was supposed to come in. She did not know how a 13-year-old got stamped by a doorman.

50On cross-examination, Ms Zhang stated that regularly they have at least two people working but that depends on weather. On August 1, 2009 it was busy after 9:40 p.m. when people started to come in. There were around 100 to 110 people present.

51The only entry that night was on the patio and from there people would come inside. She spent her whole evening at the service bar inside. Mr. Mao and the other lady Tina (her English name) were behind the bar with her. Mr. Mao was also outside at times. After 10 p.m. he was inside for about 30 minutes. Tina also went outside. There was a band on the patio. There was a security guard at the entrance to the patio, one in the patio and one in the bar room but walking around inside and outside.

52She agreed that one could not see the entrance to the patio from the service bar. She agreed that is possible that there were people who were drinking or under-aged on the patio that she did not see.

53In response to questions by the Board, Ms Zhan stated that she did not know if usually there was security at the premises because she had worked there for only one month. On this date, she saw security there for the first time.

54She did not check any identification. She assumed that security at the door would do that. She did not hear anyone give instructions to anyone about what they were supposed to do. She did see the security staff talking to Mr. Mao about how many people were allowed entry. She did not see any intoxicated people that night.

Registrar’s Submissions

55Ms Harari submitted that all the allegations in the NOP relate to August 1, 2009.

Subsection 30(4) of the LLA, service to a minor

56The evidence from TM is that he was 13-years-old at the time. He said that he consumed an alcoholic beverage at the licensed premises. He said that he was there for one hour and was listening to the music. He arrived sometime around 9:45 p.m. and was still there at 10:45 p.m.

57The evidence of Ms Zhang was that she did not patrol in the premises but that Tina and Mr. Mao did so. Between 10:00 and 11:00 p.m. Mr. Mao was away from the service bar for what she thought was 30 to 40 minutes. There were 100 to 110 people present. It is reasonable to conclude that if Tina and Mr. Mao were patrolling the premises, someone like TM would stand out. Inspector Simpson immediately noticed him. It is clear that he is not 19-years-old. One officer described him as a boy. How could Tina or Mr. Mao or the security staff have missed him?

58TM stated that MS provided him with a drink. She believes that everyone did notice him but it was decided that nothing be done so the Licensee permitted TM to have an alcoholic beverage in breach of this subsection.

Subsection 41(1) of the O.Reg, checking identification

59We know that at no point was TM asked for identification. He was given a stamp on his hand without being asked for identification. He should not have been allowed to enter. He did not have identification when asked for it by the police officer. He was generally honest with the police officers and gave them his proper name, address and date of birth. He was forthright at the hearing.

60Therefore a finding of a breach of this subsection can be made.

Subsection 45(1) of the O.Reg and section 29 of the Act, intoxication and service to an intoxicated patron

61JB was identified by P.C. Carlson whose evidence is that JB was starting to become belligerent. He was highly intoxicated, had bloodshot eyes and was unsteady on his feet. He had slow movements and had to concentrate on getting his words out. JB tried to negotiate with the officer to finish his beer. He was clearly drunk and had been served while displaying signs of intoxication.

62Inspector Simpson described other intoxicated patrons. The Inspector observed Patron 1 consuming alcohol at Burwell’s Cove. One hour prior to that she had observed the same patron being refused entry at Tub Days because of intoxication.

63The patron identified as MS was at Tub Days and was denied entry there because of intoxication. The Inspector observed MS on the patio with many beer bottles on the table in front of him and observed him drinking a beer as well. The Inspector’s observations of him were that he couldn’t walk properly and was unsteady on his feet. He had a glazed look and smelled of alcohol on his breath.

64The patron identified as TM, who was with MS, was dealt with by P.C. Derrough while P.C. Carlson was dealing with JB. They had been in the premises and drinking in the premises when P.C. Carlson suggested they leave.

65P.C. Derrough’s and P.C. Longworth’s evidence is that TM was a very young male who appeared intoxicated. He had glossy eyes, slurred speech and he had to concentrate when he spoke. TM said that he had two sips of an alcoholic beverage. P.C. Derrough believed he had more than that and gave TM a breathalyser test which registered .043 alcohol which is more than two sips.

66A finding can be made that TM was intoxicated on the licensed premises.

67Patron 4 was a male with black hair with a striped shirt and shorts. He was on the patio. Inspector Simpson observed him leave Tub Days with friends and he had been staggering, was loud and obnoxious. The Inspector also observed him on the patio at Burwell’s Cove.

68A finding can be made that the Licensee was in breach of subsection 45(1) of the O.Reg by permitting drunkenness and section 29 of the LLA for serving intoxicated patrons.

69Ms Harari submitted that she anticipated that Mr. Mao’s position is that the responsibility for breaches falls on the security company. The security staff’s responsibility was to check for identification, control matters and ensure that the LLA was not breached. We do not know what instructions the security company had. A licensee can rely on a security company to assist but the ultimate responsibility rests with the licensee.

Licensee’s Submissions

70Mr. Mao submitted that the owner asked to have a security company because she knew that they would be busy during Tub Days.

71TM is a very young person. By looking at him, one can tell that he is not 19-years-old. He asked everyone working that night, the security staff and bartenders, and no one had seen him. He did not know why TM didn’t pay the cover to get in. Security asked the Inspector to pay the cover charge.

72The LCBO sells alcohol to people over 19-years-old and they can give it to a young person to drink. Who is responsible in that case? TM said that he did not take alcohol from the bar. Who is responsible?

73The owner told the police to go into the premises and she stopped service once the Inspector told her about the police.

74Ms Meng was not in the bar. There were three people behind the bar. They have to make sure not to serve drunks. Sometimes there were two people there when he had to go get empty bottles from the premises.

75Security was supposed to make sure that there were no drunks. One of them was to tell everyone about what was to happen to stop drunks or if someone needed to be taken out.

76He asked for a cover charge for everyone coming from the beach. He hired a band so there was no need to sell more alcohol because people came to listen to the music. He did not know that security asked for a cover charge to get alcohol.

77The security person asked for the Licensee because the lady (the Inspector) was asked to pay the cover charge.

78Mr. Mao thought the security was okay.

Reasons and Analysis

79The Board reviewed the evidence and the submissions of the parties.

80Subsection 30(4) of the LLA states:

No licensee or employee of a licensee shall permit a person who appears to be under nineteen years of age to have or consume liquor in the licensee’s premises.

81The undisputed evidence regarding TM is that he was 13-years-old on August 1, 2009. The evidence of the Inspector and the police officers is that he looked very young, like a 13 year old, a child. Even Mr. Mao in his submissions admitted that TM is a very young person and that by looking at him, one can tell that he is not 19-years-old. Having observed TM at the hearing, the Board agrees that TM definitely appeared to be under nineteen years old.

82Both Inspector Simpson and P.C. Carlson saw TM on the licensed patio and P.C. Derrough and P.C. Longworth saw him leaving the patio. The evidence is clear that TM was on the licensed patio.

83TM admitted that he had a drink on the patio. He stated that it was not served to him by staff but he got the drink from his friend MS. Inspector Simpson saw him drink from a bottle of beer. Therefore, the Board finds that TM had an alcoholic beverage on the patio.

84The question that remains is whether the Licensee permitted TM to have and consume liquor. The evidence of Ms Zhang is that there was two security staff on the patio and that Mr. Mao and Tina also patrolled the premises. Given TM’s extreme youthful appearance, he would have stood out among the adults especially since no minors were supposed to be allowed entry that night as was the evidence of Ms Zhang. Staff members took no steps, either to remove TM or monitor him, but permitted him to have and consume from a bottle of beer. The licence holder is ultimately responsible for the actions of the staff in a licensed premises.

85Therefore, the Board FINDS that the Licensee breached subsection 30(4) of the LLA.

86Subsection 41(1) of the O.Reg states:

The licence holder shall ensure that, before liquor is sold or served to a person apparently under the age of nineteen years, an item of identification of the person is inspected.

87In this case, the evidence is clear that the identification of TM, who was 13 years at the time, was not checked.

88TM stated that he was not asked for ID at the entrance to the patio. The evidence of P.C. Derrough is that TM did not have ID with him when asked for it. According to Ms Zhang, security was checking identification at the entrance to the patio which was the only point of entry to the premises that evening. She did not check any ID that night because security was supposed to do that and not let in anyone under the age of 19 years. Inspector Simpson testified that TM had a stamp on his hand so he must have passed security upon entering. Given his extremely young appearance, he would have been turned away if his ID had been checked.

89Therefore, the Board FINDS that the licence holder breached subsection 41(1) of the O.Reg.

90Subsection 45(1) of the O.Reg states:

The licence holder shall not permit drunkenness, unlawful gambling or riotous, quarrelsome, violent or disorderly conduct to occur on the premises or in the adjacent washrooms, liquor and food preparation areas under the exclusive control of the licence holder.

91In this case, the allegation under this subsection deals with drunkenness in the premises.

92The evidence of the Inspector and P.C. Derrough and P.C. Longworth is that TM appeared intoxicated, had alcohol on his breath, had glossy eyes or a glazed look, slurred or slightly slurred speech and was concentrating on his words when he spoke and he was unsteady on his feet. The Board agrees that he was exhibiting signs of intoxication. However, the breathalyzer test showed that he had .043 mg alcohol/100 ml of blood which P.C. Derrough stated was just below a warning to drive a motor vehicle. Given that he would have been able to drive a motor vehicle and that he was allowed to go off with his bicycle which he would likely have driven, the Board is not prepared to find that he was intoxicated.

93Therefore the Board makes no finding of a breach of subsection 45(1) of the O.Reg regarding TM.

94In the case of JB, Inspector Simpson observed him on the patio at Burwell’s Cove and has seen him an hour earlier at Tub Days where he was refused entry because he was intoxicated. The evidence of P.C. Carlson regarding JB is that he was highly intoxicated. He had bloodshot eyes and slurred speech. He was unsteady on his feet and his movements were slow and he had to concentrate on his movements. He was belligerent, took a fighting stance when asked to leave and was not allowed to finish his beer. The officer managed to talk him out of the premises.

95It is clear from the evidence that JB was drunk. He exhibited evident signs of intoxication and when asked to leave he became belligerent to the point of taking a fighting stance with a police officer which is not the actions of a sober individual. Fortunately the officer was able to talk him out of the establishment before matters escalated.

96Given that there were two security staff on the patio and that Mr. Mao and Tina also patrolled in the premises, the Board FINDS that, on a balance of probabilities, they would have noticed a patron whose condition was immediately evident to the Inspector and P.C. Carlson yet he was allowed to remain on the premises.

97Therefore, the Board FINDS that the licence holder permitted drunkenness in the premises in breach of subsection 45(1) of the O.Reg in the case of JB.

98With regard to MS and Patrons 4 and 5, the Board FINDS that they were exhibiting some signs of intoxication but that there is not sufficient evidence to make a finding that they were intoxicated and that the licence holder permitted drunkenness.

99Therefore, the Board makes no finding of a breach of subsection 45(1) of the O.Reg in the case of MS, and Patrons 4 and 5.

100Section 29 of the LLA states:

No person shall sell or supply liquor or permit liquor to be sold or supplied to any person who is or appears to be intoxicated.

101As stated above, the Board found that JB was drunk. There is evidence from Inspector Simpson that he was refused entry at Tub Days because he was intoxicated. That was, however, an hour before she saw him at Burwell’s Cove. Because of the passage of time, the Board is not prepared to draw the conclusion that if he was exhibiting signs of intoxication at Tub Days, he was exhibiting the same signs when he entered Burwell’s Cove. There is no evidence about his appearance when he entered the premises or when he was served alcohol at the premises.

102Therefore, the Board makes no finding of a breach of section 29 of the LLA for JB.

Conclusion

103For the above reasons, the Board FINDS the Licensee contravened the allegations of violations of subsection 30(4) of the LLA and subsection 41(1) of the O.Reg.

104The Board invites written submissions on penalty from the respective parties. The Registrar’s representative shall serve and file written submissions within seven (7) days of the date of this decision. The Licensee’s representative shall have seven (7) days to serve and file a written response. The Registrar’s representative may serve and file a reply within three (3) days of the receipt of the Licensee’s response. All submissions are to be filed with the Manager, Hearings Department, Alcohol and Gaming Commission, at the address on the front page of this decision in accordance with the Board’s Rules of Practice.

DATED AT TORONTO THIS 28 DAY OF MARCH, 2011