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-
Nancy’s Bar & Grill Inc., operating as Nancy’s Bar & Grill
Licensee
DECISION ON FINDINGS
Panel: David Gavsie, Former Chair
Bruce S. Miller, Board Member
Decision Date: April 11, 2011
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 ) Aviva Harari, Representative
6477291 Canada Inc., Licensee ) Randall Barrs, Representative
Authorities
2008221 Ontario Inc. (Pilot Tavern) (Re), 2007 CanLII 47087 (ON A.G.C.)
Registrar, Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario v. 2008221 Ontario Inc. (Pilot Tavern), 2008 CanLII 46925 (On S.C.D.C.) -2008-09-15
Allegations
- A hearing into Notice of Proposal number 18282 dated September 3, 2010, to suspend liquor licence number 280976 issued to Nancy’s Bar & Grill Inc. (the “Licensee”), operating as NANCY’S BAR & GRILL, 1215 Weston Road, Toronto, Ontario, M6M 4P7, on the basis of an alleged violation of section 29 of the Liquor Licence Act (the “LLA”) and subsection 45(1) of Ontario Regulation 719/90 (the “O.Reg”) made pursuant to the LLA was held on January 5, 2011 and March 4, 2011 in the City of Toronto.
Decision
- After considering all the evidence and submissions the Board DISMISSES the allegations that the Licensee violated section 29 of the LLA and subsection 45(1) of O. Reg 719/90 made pursuant to the LLA.
Registrar’s Evidence
Charlene Graham has been a police officer with the Toronto Police Service for two years.
She went to Nancy’s Bar & Grill on May 1, 2010. She was dispatched there because of a complaint that a female had been threatened and pushed by another female. The witness was advised both females had been drinking. She arrived at 10:02 p.m.
The witness saw the female suspect, Angie Enever, outside Nancy’s Bar & Grill when she arrived. It was obvious Ms Enever had been drinking. She was stumbling, slurring her words and had a heavy odour of alcohol. Ms Enever stated she had been drinking at Nancy’s Bar & Grill and was celebrating her son’s birthday. The witness’ partner, Victor Romita, dealt with the female complainant who was also present.
Radio checks revealed that Ms Enever had a history of mental instability.
The investigation revealed that the complaint was unfounded.
Both parties were cautioned regarding intoxication and were sent home and told not to return to the bar that night.
She spoke to the Licensee, Nancy Iannarella, and advised her that both females were intoxicated and to call the police if they returned. She warned Ms Iannarella against over-service.
On cross-examination the witness stated she had been to Nancy’s Bar & Grill before. She described the patrons at Nancy’s Bar & Grill as “living on the edge.” They have medical and drug problems.
Ms Enever was standing outside when she arrived and it appeared that she was waiting for the police. It was the first time she had dealt with Ms Enever. She never asked Ms Enever how much she had to drink or whether Ms Enever’s son was there. She never asked any questions regarding the service of alcohol.
Ms Enever’s speech was slurred. She did not know if Ms Enever was missing any teeth.
There was no reply.
In response to a question from the Board, she stated she spoke to the Licensee inside the bar. She was on the scene for approximately half an hour. She did not lay any provincial offence charges.
She stated in response to a question from Ms Harari that she has the discretion whether or not to lay provincial charges.
Victor Romita has been a police officer with the Toronto Police Service for four years and served with the military for 10 years prior to that.
On May 1, 2010, he was partnered with Charlene Graham. They were dispatched to Nancy’s Bar & Grill and arrived at 10:02 p.m. They were sent to the bar regarding an assault complaint. The call had been received by police dispatch at 9:19 p.m. The complaint was that a female had threatened to kill another female and had assaulted her in the past. Dispatch advised the females had been drinking.
The witness dealt with the complainant who advised him that Ms Enever had pushed her in the basement of Nancy’s Bar & Grill. The complainant had been drinking, she smelled of alcohol, her speech was slurred and her story did not make a lot of sense as it kept changing. The witness had prior dealings with the complainant and she has emotional and medical problems. He believed the assault complaint to be unfounded.
Both the complainant and the suspect were cautioned regarding intoxication and told to leave the bar.
He left the scene at 10:45 p.m.
On cross-examination he stated he never saw either of the two individuals consuming alcohol.
The complainant was outside the bar on arrival. Her story did not make much sense but that is not unusual for her. He did not ask her if she consumed any alcohol at Nancy’s Bar & Grill nor did he ask her how much she had to drink. Several patrons told him the complainant had been in Nancy’s Bar & Grill.
He did not know if the complainant took any drugs or medication.
He did not speak to the Licensee.
On reply he stated he made a note in his notebook that the complainant had been drinking.
Neline Fernando has been an Inspector with the AGCO for the past four years. She was an Ontario Provincial Police Special Constable for eight years prior to joining the AGCO.
She went to Nancy’s Bar & Grill on May 30, 2010 to do an inspection. She was accompanied by AGCO Inspector Jade Leadbetter and Sergeant McFadyen. They arrived at 1:25 a.m. There were 10 people inside the bar which is a small premises.
The witness saw a female exhibiting signs of intoxication. She was swaying and staggering. She was talking loudly to no one in particular and had slurred speech.
She spoke to the Licensee, Nancy Iannarella, and pointed out the female. Ms Iannarella stated, “No she`s not drunk. She’s fine. She’s always like that.”
The witness spoke to the female patron who identified herself as L.T. L.T. had a strong odour of alcohol on her breath and stated she did not know how much she had to drink.
The witness spoke to the Licensee. L.T. interrupted her and started to cry and said “mommy, mommy.” She then stopped crying and started to laugh.
L.T. told the witness that she was taking medication for her back. She was swaying and staggering, had glazed eyes and heavy eyelids. L.T. was holding a glass of “beverage alcohol.” The witness told the Licensee not to serve L.T. any more alcohol.
The Inspector went outside. She looked back in the premises through a window and saw L.T. with a new glass containing some sort of fluid. She went back in and L.T. told her she had just purchased the new drink.
The witness then spoke to the Licensee who stated she had served L.T. a new drink. The Licensee stated, “Yeah she wanted one more, it’s okay.”
The witness then left the premises.
On cross-examination the witness stated she had never met L.T. prior to the night in question.
She felt, based on her experience, that L.T. was intoxicated and did not have medical problems.
The witness agreed that L.T. could have been drinking elsewhere and could have had nothing to drink for the past several hours. She never asked L.T. how much she had to drink at Nancy’s Bar & Grill.
The witness believed L.T. was laughing and crying because of alcohol consumption. She did not know when L.T. arrived at the premises.
The witness stated she uses the term beverage alcohol when she does not know what type of alcohol is in a drink. There was a strong odour of beverage alcohol coming from L.T.’s glass. She never asked L.T. what type of alcohol she was consuming.
She knew that L.T. had a new drink after the witness went outside as she noticed that L.T.’s glass was full and it had only been half-full when the witness was talking to L.T.
The new drink was beverage alcohol and was the same dark colour. She never asked the Licensee what was in L.T.’s drink. The witness is confident it was beverage alcohol.
The Licensee took the drink from L.T. who asked for her money back.
There was no reply.
When the witness testified, she gestured that L.T. had been holding a drink up by her mouth area when the witness noticed an odour of alcohol coming from L.T. The Board questioned the witness on how she could tell the difference between the odour from the glass and the odour from L.T.’s breath. The witness replied she could tell the difference as a person’s breath smells “staler.”
Jade Leadbetter has been employed as an AGCO Inspector for four years. She was an Ontario Provincial Police Special Constable for four years prior to becoming an Inspector.
She went to Nancy’s Bar & Grill on May 30, 2010 at 1:25 a.m. to assist with an inspection.
She saw a female patron showing signs of intoxication as soon as she entered. The female was unsteady on her feet and was staggering all around the establishment. The patron’s eyes were droopy, her speech was slurred and she was speaking in a loud voice. The patron slumped on a bench and she saw Inspector Fernando speak to her.
The witness testified she spoke to the bartender. Mr. Barrs objected for the record as he stated he knew the testimony would be allowed even though it could not be tested through cross-examination. The Board allowed the witness to continue ruling that hearsay evidence was allowed and the Board would assess the amount of weight it should be given. The witness stated the bartender told her that L.T. was served one vodka and coke.
She left the establishment and did not go back in when Inspector Fernando re-entered.
On cross-examination she stated she had never met L.T. prior to the evening in question.
The witness advised there were 10 people in the premises. She was sure the bartender knew she was asking questions about L.T. and not another person.
There was no reply.
In response to a question from the Board, she stated it was a small premises. She did not know the capacity. The bar is at one end and you can see all the tables from there. There are no obstructions.
Licensee’s Motion
Registrar’s counsel advised the evidence for the Registrar was complete. Mr. Barrs made a motion there be no finding made on both dates as the evidence was “very questionable.”
Mr. Barrs reviewed the May 1, 2010 incident first. He pointed out the police felt that the complaint was bogus. Registrar’s counsel did not call any of the patrons as witnesses. The police officers found both females outside Nancy’s Bar & Grill. The officers never asked where they had been drinking, when they had been drinking or how much they had to drink. Both females were told to go home and no charges were laid. The complaint is unfounded.
There is no evidence that either of the two patrons drank inside Nancy’s Bar & Grill and there is only hearsay evidence that they were inside the premises. One or both of the females in question may have been high on something but there is no evidence as to what that may have been.
At the highest, the two individuals were found outside the premises. The officers were told the females had been drinking. There is no evidence the females were inside and the police officers did not ask any questions.
The May 30, 2010 incident is a little more complicated. There is no evidence of what was in L.T.’s glass. She was in a less than healthy state, acting oddly and had some problems with her physical control. The Licensee advised the Inspector that L.T. was not drunk and always acted like that. It should be noted that the Registrar did not call L.T. to testify.
L.T.’s behaviour was bizarre and it could be consistent with alcohol consumption or other problems. L.T. told Inspector Fernando that she was taking medication but the Inspector did not believe her.
Inspector Fernando’s evidence lacks the air of reality. How can she decipher what odour is coming from the glass. We would all be pretty hard pressed to detect the odour of vodka. It is absurd to suggest you can detect that odour from other odours in the bar.
Nobody can describe the fluid in the glass. Nobody asked any questions. Inspector Fernando’s evidence is not credible.
There was very little investigation done on the second visit that night.
Both allegations have not been proven and based on the balance of probabilities, no finding should be made.
Ms Harari replied that the Board needed to consider the totality of the evidence.
On May 1, 2010, there were two intoxicated patrons on the premises. Two police officers attended to investigate an assault allegation and that was their focus. They found two individuals who said they had been drinking. These are not trained liquor inspectors but are police officers. One of the patrons stated she was at Nancy’s Bar & Grill for a birthday party. One of the officers knew the complainant and noted she was acting differently and had been drinking. There is evidence both patrons were intoxicated.
Inspector Fernando gave great detail about the May 30, 2010 incident concerning the patron’s signs of intoxication. There were only 10 people in the bar. There was no question as to whom Inspector Leadbettor was asking about when she spoke to the bartender. Inspector Fernando told the Licensee to stop serving L.T. and she was served another drink as soon as the Inspector walked out of the bar. The Licensee stated L.T. wanted one more drink and the Board can assume the drink contained liquor. There is no evidence it was not alcohol.
The Board should disallow the motion.
The Board ruled against the motion. There has been a prima facie case made by Registrar’s counsel on the allegations based on the evidence. In the Board’s view the onus of dismissing the allegations of the Registrar by motion is higher than the onus in making findings.
Ms Harari then stated that this is an administrative hearing and not a criminal one. She supplied the Board with the Board’s and the Divisional Court’s decision in Pilot Tavern. She stated that it is a principle in administrative law that when the respondent brings a motion of non-suit that there is a requirement to make an election whether to call evidence. She stated Mr. Barrs should have done this when he brought his motion forward. The Licensee should not be allowed to call evidence.
The Board requested written submissions from both counsel on Ms Harari’s motion. The Board DISMISSED the motion in a written decision dated February 17, 2011.
Licensee`s Evidence
Angie Enever was born in 1960. She suffers from cancer and is taking medication for it. She was at Nancy
s Bar & Grill on May 1, 2010. She arrived at Nancys Bar & Grill about 15 to 20 minutes prior to the arrival of police. She did not drink any alcohol while she was there and only had an orange juice.She became involved in an altercation with another female named L.T. They went outside and she hit L.T. in the head.
She did not have any alcohol to drink that day and she did not know if L.T. had been drinking.
The police officer told her not to return to Nancy`s Bar & Grill that day and told her she could go to another bar if she wanted.
On cross-examination Ms Enever stated that she now works at Nancy`s Bar & Grill. She works there as a server and has been employed there since October 2010.
In May 2010 she used to go to Nancy`s Bar & Grill about two times a week. She would usually have a beer or two when she went there.
She has been taking medication for eight years for stomach problems. She also takes medication for an allergy.
It was her son
s birthday on May 1, 2010 and she went to Nancys Bar & Grill with him. She could not remember what time she arrived but it was still daylight. She was there for 15 to 20 minutes when L.T. called her outside. She gave her son her personal belongings, walked outside and hit L.T. The police arrived about 15 minutes later. Nancy, the owner, came outside and took L.T. into the bar. Nancy told the witness not to come into the bar.After the police left she went to another bar and had a few drinks.
She did not remember the name of the officer that she dealt with and could not remember if it was a male or female police officer.
The medication that she takes does not affect her ability to function properly.
She believes that S.S. called the police about her that day. She was told the police had no record of L.T. being involved and the witness insisted she had the altercation with L.T.
She is missing a tooth and this impairs her speech.
On reply she stated she has a partial plate for her teeth but cannot remember if she had it in on May 1, 2010.
Nancy Iannarella has owned Nancy
s Bar & Grill for the past 13 years and has been in the hospitality business for 30 years. Nancys Bar & Grill has a capacity of 38 persons. Food is served at the premises. There have never been any problems there.L.T. has medical problems and is a drug user. L.T. comes into the bar on occasion and cries. She calls the witness mommy. The witness has cared for L.T.’s son in the past.
The witness stated that S.S. was there on May 1, 2010. S.S. ordered a beer and did not even drink it. L.T. arrived just before the fight started.
On May 30, 2010, she served L.T. one rum and cranberry juice drink. L.T. was crying and calling her mommy. L.T. was in the premises for about 15 to 20 minutes when the inspectors and the police arrived. L.T. had not finished her drink when they arrived.
L.T. asked for more juice when the inspectors and the police left and the witness gave her more juice.
L.T. always appears drunk even when she is not.
On cross-examination the witness stated she does the cooking and employs two to four staff members. The witness trained her staff and told her staff never to over-serve a patron. She instructed her staff to notify her if they believe a patron has had too much to drink.
The witness has known L.T. for 12 to 13 years. L.T.’s son is 21 years of age. The son stayed with her for a week about six to seven years ago. L.T. has cancer and had an operation two weeks ago. L.T. acts strange when she is on drugs. The witness feels sorry for L.T. and gives her free food.
Her bartender served L.T. on May 30, 2010. The witness does not have a copy of the receipt for L.T.’s drink that night. Her bartender was sick and was unable to attend the hearing.
She did not serve Ms Enever the night she was there. S.S. always drinks beer. L.T. was with S.S. on the day in question.
There was no reply.
In response to questions from the Board, the witness stated there was a little fight outside the premises on May 1, 2010. The witness went outside and brought L.T. inside. Ms Enever and L.T. were involved in the fight. S.S. went outside when Ms Enever and L.T. got into the fight.
Registrar`s Submissions
The sale and service of alcohol is highly regulated to ensure public safety. We expect Licensees to demonstrate a high degree of responsibility. The Licensee in this matter has been in business for 30 years.
The Board is dealing with two allegations which occurred 30 days apart. There was an allegation there were drunken patrons on the premises on May 1, 2010. Both police officers testified Ms Enever and S.S. were drunk. There was no evidence from the officers that L.T. was the victim.
The police were called regarding an assault and not for a liquor investigation. The officers spoke to the two involved females, S.S. and Ms Enever, and noted both had been drinking. Officer Graham noted Ms Enever slurred her words, smelled heavily of alcohol and was stumbling. The officers noted the Licensee seemed unconcerned about the incident.
The second incident occurred on May 30, 2010. The bar was not busy. Inspector Leadbetter testified that L.T. was staggering, had drooping eyes, slurred speech and that she was slumped on a bench. Inspector Fernando described L.T. as swaying and staggering, having slurred speech, having an odour of alcohol and talking loudly to no one in particular.
Inspector Leadbetter was told by the bartender that L.T. had arrived 15 to 20 minutes earlier and had been served a vodka and coke.
L.T. did not respond when Inspector Fernando asked her how much she had to drink. The Inspector noted that L.T.’s glass was half-full. The Inspector told the Licensee not to serve L.T. anything else. The Inspector left the premises and looked back in from outside and saw that L.T. had a full glass in her hand. The Licensee told Inspector Fernando she served L.T. a fresh drink and did not deny it contained alcohol.
The signs noted by the Inspectors on May 30, 2010 are not the usual signs shown by L.T. Usually she just cries and says, “mommy, mommy.”
The evidence of the police officers and the Inspectors in both matters is credible, believable and has the ring of truth to it. Their evidence should be preferred to that of the Licensee.
It should be noted that none of the records or receipts of what the parties had to drink in both matters was brought before the Board.
There is no evidence that L.T. was present on May 1, 2010.
The Board should make a finding on both matters.
Licensee`s Submissions
The balance of probabilities is a serious burden. In their ruling the Board stated it took the motion of non-suit seriously.
The May 1, 2010 charge should never have been laid. Registrar’s counsel is being unfair when she stated Ms Enever was not credible. There is no evidence L.T. was not present. There is no evidence Ms Enever did not hit L.T. Just because the dispatcher told the police officers that people had been drinking does not mean they were drunk.
The police officers admitted that a lot of the customers at Nancy`s Bar & Grill are “living on the edge.”
Officer Graham stated Ms Enever had been drinking and smelled of alcohol. There is nothing in Officer Graham`s notes about how much Ms Enever had to drink.
S.S. told the police officers she was assaulted inside the premises. The police stated the complaint was unfounded.
The police did not lay any public intoxication charges. Ms Enever testified she did not drink any alcohol.
Officer Graham testified Ms Enever was stumbling but there is nothing about this in her notes. Officer Graham was exaggerating when she testified.
The officers did not ask any pertinent questions.
The other allegation concerns May 30, 2010. In this case the Inspectors may not have realized that people are living on the edge. Inspector Fernando commented on L.T.`s behaviour but does not know her. Ms Iannarella not only knows L.T., but also feeds her and takes care of her.
L.T. was able to identify herself to the Inspectors and answer questions.
The Licensee always warns L.T. to behave when she comes in. She always gives L.T. food. L.T.`s problems are drug related and have nothing to do with over-service.
Inspector Fernando never asked what was in the drink in question. She never did any investigation.
The Inspectors do not ask L.T. to leave nor do they ask the Licensee to have L.T. leave the premises. When Inspector Fernando was questioned about the odour of alcohol the answer was unsatisfactory. Any evidence from the bartender is unreliable as it was hearsay evidence.
L.T. has a problem with drugs and that is why she acted as she did.
The balance of probabilities is a serious bar. The Board was correct in dismissing the motion of non-suit and was correct that the decision was close to the line.
Ms Iannarella has not been in business for 30 years because she does not know what she is doing. Her clients have problems and the Inspectors were too quick to blame those problems on alcohol.
Ms Iannarella looks after some of her patrons. She feels sorry for them.
The Board should dismiss all the allegations.
Registrar`s Reply
The fact that police did not lay any charges on May 1, 2010 is not relevant.
There is not a different standard for establishments catering to people who live on the edge.
The test for intoxication is not limited to alcohol. It does not matter whether the patron is on drugs or alcohol. The Licensee should not serve them.
Analysis/Reasons/Findings
The Board has carefully considered all the evidence and the submissions presented.
The first allegation (May 1, 2010) concerns an alleged violation of subsection 45(1) of the O.Reg which reads as follows:
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 and storage areas under the exclusive control of the licence holder.
There are two key issues for the Board in this allegation. The first is whether one or both of the two patrons were drunk on the premises and the second is whether the Licensee permitted drunkenness.
The Registrar’s case relies upon the evidence of two police officers who were sent to investigate an assault. The officers dealt with the complainant, S.S. and the suspect, Ms Enever. The officers found the complaint to be unfounded.
Officer Graham testified that it was obvious Ms Enever had been drinking. She was stumbling, slurring her words and had a heavy odour of alcohol. Ms Enever stated she had been drinking at Nancy’s Bar & Grill and was celebrating her son’s birthday.
Officer Romita dealt with S.S. and he testified S.S. had been drinking, she smelled of alcohol, her speech was slurred and her story didn’t make a lot of sense as it kept changing but that was not unusual for her. The officers warned both females about public intoxication and sent them on their way.
Ms Enever testified that she had nothing to drink that day and became involved in an altercation with L.T. Ms Enever testified she was not involved in an altercation with S.S. This does not conflict with the officer’s testimony as they found S.S.’s complaint to be unfounded.
The officers were investigating an assault and their investigation was not focused on a liquor investigation. The officers did not ask any questions related to the consumption of alcohol. Their testimony as to the intoxication of Ms Enever and S.S. was cursory and limited. There was also evidence to the contrary from Ms Enever. There is insufficient evidence for the Board to make a finding that either female was intoxicated.
Even if the Board had found that one or both of the females were drunk there was little evidence that the Licensee “permitted” drunkenness. To that end, the Board must consider whether the Licensee “knew or ought to have known” that a patron(s) was drunk as per the Court of Appeal’s reasoning in the Sin City decision. That decision also requires the Board to make this determination in “all the circumstances and, in particular, in the context of the various obligations and duties placed on the Licensee by the relevant legislation and regulations.”
There was almost no evidence as to the conduct of the two females in Nancy’s Bar & Grill including how much they had to drink while they were there and how long they had been in the bar. The Board is unable to make a finding that the Licensee permitted drunkenness.
The second allegation allegedly occurred on May 30, 2010 and involved an alleged violation of section 29 of the LLA and subsection 45(1) of O.Reg made pursuant to the LLA.
The Board referred to subsection 45(1) of O.Reg in the May 1, 2010 allegation.
The Board will deal with the question of intoxication first. Inspector Fernando stated that L.T. was showing signs of intoxication which included slurred speech, swaying, staggering, odour of alcohol and talking loudly to no one in particular. When the Inspector spoke to the Licensee, L.T. cried and said “mommy, mommy.” Inspector Leadbetter noted that L.T. was unsteady on her feet, staggering, talking in a loud voice and that her speech was slurred. The bartender told Inspector Fernando she had served L.T. one vodka and coke.
Ms Iannarella testified that that L.T. has medical and drug problems, behaves abnormally and appears drunk when she is not. Ms Iannarella feels sorry for L.T. and looks after her.
This is a difficult decision for the Board. There is no doubt that L.T. was acting in a bizarre manner. The Inspectors assumed L.T. was intoxicated while the Licensee, Ms Iannarella, stated L.T. always acts drunk even if she is not. It would have been helpful if the Inspectors had asked some additional questions. Inspector Fernando agreed with Mr. Barrs that L.T. could have been drinking elsewhere and could have had nothing to drink for the past several hours.
The Board also noted that Inspector Fernando did not advise the Licensee to have L.T. leave the premises but only told the Licensee not to serve L.T. any more. This seems to be an unusual step if in fact L.T. was intoxicated, as it would allow the offence to continue. The Inspectors may not have the power to force a patron to leave but they can suggest it to the Licensee. Based on the balance of probabilities the Board does not find that L.T. was intoxicated.
The other allegation dealt with an alleged violation of Section 29 of the LLA and reads as follows:
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.
The Board found that L.T. was not intoxicated so this allegation is not made out. Even if the Board had found that L.T. was intoxicated it would have been helpful if some further investigation had been done. Inspector Fernando was confident that the drink in question was “beverage alcohol” but it could have been useful if she asked L.T. or Ms Iannerella what the drink contained.
The May 30, 2010 allegation involved a difficult decision for the Board. Even though the Board did not make a finding, the Licensee may well be advised to consider the type of clientele she allows in her establishment.
Conclusion
- Therefore, for the reasons given, the Board DISMISSES the allegations that the Licensee violated section 29 of the LLA and subsection 45(1) of O. Reg 719/90 made pursuant to the LLA.
DATED AT TORONTO THIS 11 DAY OF April , 2011
DAVID GAVSIE, FORMER CHAIR BRUCE S. MILLER, BOARD MEMBER