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-
1514507 Ontario Inc. operating as Riverbend Pub and Dining
Licensee
DECISION ON FINDINGS
Panel: Kirsti Hunt, Vice-Chair Joan Lougheed, Board Member
Decision Date: October 28, 2011
Hearing Location: Ottawa, 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 ) Tamara Brooks, Representative
1514507 Ontario Inc., Licensee ) Michael Rankin, Representative
Authorities
1213963 Ontario Ltd. V. AGCO, [2009] O.J. No. 1553 (C.A.)
1577107 Ontario Inc. ( c.o.b. Place Bar and Grill) and AGCO, [2008] O.A.G.C.D.No. 405
475687 Ontario Ltd. (c.o.b. Horsehoe Tavern) v. AGCO, [2010] ONSC 3341
681311 Ontario Ltd. (c.o.b. Shots Sports Tap & Grill)(Re), [2009] O.A.G.C.D. No. 52
Ale House Co. St. Thomas (Re), [2006] O.A.G.C.D. No. 1
Ganaraska Hotel (Re), [2003] O.A.G.C.D. No. 350
Gillen and College of Physisicans & Sugerons of Ontario, (1989) 1989 CanLII 4363 (ON HCJ), 68 O.R. (2d) 278
Horseshoe Valley Resort Ltd v. AGCO (2005), 264 D.S.R., (4th) 686, 144 A.C.W.S.(3d) 1067
Keenanv Scandals Ltd., (2000) Carswell Ont 959
Magic Duck (Re), [1999] O.A.G.C.D. No. 235
R v. Gauthier, (1999) (O.C.J.) Levesque, J
R v. Giri, [2001] O.J. No. 3307
R v. Lindo, (1996) (O.C.J.) Nadelle, J.
R. v. Wigglesworth, 1987 CanLII 41 (SCC), [1987] S.C.J. No. 71
R v. Zeolkowski, (1989), 1989 CanLII 72 (SCC), 61 D.L.R. (4th) 725 (S.C.C.) at 732
Sand Bar (Re), [1999] 0.A.G.C.D. No. 64
Shooters 222 Restaurant Ltd. and AGCO, [2004] O.J. No. 5595
Thomson v. Canada ( Minister of Agriculture), 1992 CanLII 121 (SCC), [1992], 89 D.L.R. (4th)218 SCC
Exhibits
Exhibit 1 – statement of A. Anderson, dated January 26th
Exhibit 2 – e-mail of January 26th from Anderson to Rhoden
Exhibit 3 - e-mail of March 20, 2010 from Adrian to Rhoden
Exhibit 4 - Photo Brief
Exhibit 5 - copy of bar receipt – credit card receipt from Riverbend pub found on person of Mr. S.
Exhibit 6 - two receipts, showing business copy signed by Mr. S. and one that gets submitted….
Exhibit 7 - Electronic Witness Statement, author Rhoden
Exhibit 8 - Ottawa Police Service Occurrence #10-21500 – notes of Plunkett
Exhibit 9 - A, B, C pages; end of day cash receipts for January 24, 2010
Exhibit 10 - A, B, C pages, end of day cash receipts for January 23/10
Exhibit 11 - –Receipt from Riverbend pub for $11. 21
Exhibit 12 – A,B,C liquor store receipts.
Exhibit 13 - Application information – changes, etc
Exhibit 14 - Application of the Riverbend
Allegations
- A hearing into Notice of Proposal (“NOP”) number 18278, dated October 29, 2010 to suspend liquor licence number 90859 (the “licence”) issued to 1514507 Ontario Inc. (the “Licensee”) operating as RIVERBEND PUB & DINING, 3256 River Road, Manotick, Ontario K4M 1B4, on the basis of alleged violations of section 29 of the Liquor Licence Act (the “LLA”) and section 49 and subsections 31(1)(c), 33(1) and 45(1) of Ontario Regulation 719/90 (the “O.Reg”) made pursuant to the LLA, was held on March 28, 29 and 30, 2011 and May 30 and 31, 2011 in the City of Ottawa.
Decision
- The Board FINDS the Licensee contravened subsections 31(1)(c) and 33(1) of the O.Reg and DISMISSES the allegations of violations of section 29 of the LLA and section 49 and subsection 45(1) of the O.Reg.
Preliminary Matters
- The board ordered the exclusion of witnesses on consent of all parties, with Detective Rhoden as an exception as he was the investigating / instructing officer.
Registrar’s Evidence
Adrian Anderson attended the Riverbend at 12:45 a.m. on January 23, 2010. He was with a male friend, Mr. MacLaurin, and stayed until about 1:30 a.m. They had driven to the establishment in separate cars.
The witness noted that there were not many people in pub and many had come on their snowmobiles and were in the establishment wearing their snowsuits.
Mr. Anderson and his friend were sitting at the bar when a female, Ms L., came out of the pool room offering to buy them a drink. Mr. MacFarlane came out of the poolroom area and joined them.
The witness stated that Mr. MacFarlane was “tipsy.” He was unco-ordinated and seemed to be intoxicated.
Another male, Mr. S., came from the poolroom and started arguing. Ms L. told him to go home. Mr. MacFarlane asked Mr. S. to apologize to Ms L. Mr. Anderson stated that this was more of a drunken discussion than an argument and all apologized
Mr. Anderson stated that Mr. S. ordered two glasses of whiskey and asked that it be put on his tab.
The witness stated that he felt uncomfortable when these patrons joined them at the bar and he went home.
In the morning, as a volunteer firefighter, he was called to assist police with an ice water rescue. The dispatch indicated that the person had no vital signs.
At the site, an officer was overheard saying that a receipt had been found on the deceased for the Riverbend Pub. The witness indicated that he spoke to PC Rhoden, indicating that he recognized the deceased by his facial features, the snowsuit and helmet. This was the male he had seen at the Riverbend. He did not personally know Mr. S.
Later, Mr. Anderson sent PC Rhoden a statement, at his request.
In response to questions, Mr. Anderson stated that he had two bottles of beer. One beer was purchased by Ms L. He noted that Ms L. was intoxicated. She was unco-ordinated, stumbling and her speech was slurred. He noted this while she sat with him at the bar for about ten minutes.
When asked, Mr. Anderson stated that Mr. MacFarlane was intoxicated when he came to the bar. Mr. MacFarlane was stumbling, bumping into him, trying to sit between him and Ms L., had slurred speech and was raising his voice.
Mr. Anderson stated that Mr. S. was also intoxicated. He had a hard time walking, had slurred speech, was sweating and smelled of alcohol.
Mr. Anderson stated that Helen (Ms Cheung) was serving that night and another staff person, Ms Agnes Chee, was present and watching TV. He did not see Ms Chee serving.
On cross-examination Mr. Anderson stated that at the accident scene, the police did not tell him a flask of whiskey was found with Mr. S. When asked if this information would have changed his view of events, he replied that it would have.
Mr. Anderson indicated that he told police he had seen Mr. S. at the Riverbend and that he was intoxicated. Mr. Anderson stated that he had taken a course on the signs of intoxication.
On January 26th, Mr. Anderson was contacted by PC Rhoden, asking him for a statement. He was told to give the facts. PC Rhoden did not specify what should be in the statement. He was told there would be a criminal investigation and that he would be called as a witness.
His statement (Exhibits 1 & 2) was emailed on January 26th to PC Rhoden.
PC Rhoden asked him to get a statement from his friend, Mr. MacLaurin. He stated that Mr. MacLaurin gave him his statement, which Mr. Anderson emailed to PC Rhoden.
Mr. Anderson confirmed that Mr. S. was a big man and was wearing a snowsuit in the establishment. He confirmed that he had not included the smell of alcohol in his statement relating to Mr. S., and said that he did recall this fact in testimony today.
He stated that he did not take any action that night, in his duties as a volunteer firefighter, even though he knew the patrons were drinking and showing signs of intoxication.
David MacLaurin is a friend of Mr. Anderson and drove with him to the Riverbend around midnight. He recognized two patrons playing pool and stated that there were about seven people in the establishment that night. He and Mr. Anderson sat at the bar and he ordered a beer.
Mr. MacLaurin stated that a female and two males came to the service bar. He did not recall if they had drinks with them. The female ordered a drink for Mr. Anderson.
He stated that the males were getting rowdy. They were arguing and getting loud and obnoxious. The two males had trouble standing and were leaning on each other and the female. He could tell that they had been drinking.
Mr. MacLaurin stated that he left with Mr. Anderson between 1 a.m. and 1:30 a.m. The two males and female were still at the bar with the server.
The witness said that Mr. Anderson told him that when at the accident site, police asked for a statement from both of them. Mr. MacLaurin had not spoken to police himself and gave his statement to Mr. Anderson to forward to police. He thought he provided the statement one or two weeks after the incident and had some assistance from Mr. Anderson.
On cross-examination Mr. MacLaurin confirmed that they had been bowling, driving in one car, with Mr. Anderson being the designated driver.
He stated that Mr. Anderson helped him prepare the statement, telling him how to write it, not what to say. Mr. Anderson had shown him a copy of the statement he had prepared.
Mr. MacLaurin stated they were at the bar about 1 ½ hours and the other patrons were still in the bar when they left. In the last half hour they had some interaction with other patrons.
The witness did not have any knowledge of the patrons, including who ordered drinks, who was drinking and what kind of drinks they were having.
He could not hear the conversation that the female patron had with Mr. Anderson. He could not identify any other signs that the two males and female had been drinking, other than that they were leaning on the bar.
In response to questions from the Panel, Mr. MacLaurin stated that he did not recall who had a bottle of beer in their hand and did not recall if the person had carried it over from the pool room or received it from the bar.
PC (Police Constable) Greg Rhoden was the lead investigator in the incident involving Mr. S. At 7:20 a.m. on January 24, 2010, he was notified of a snowmobile being involved in a collision. There had been a missing person’s call at 5 a.m.
He was at the scene of the accident with Detective Plunkett and Sgt. Watson. He noted a snowmobile was against a tree and the deceased was lying next to the machine. Paramedics had found a metal flask that was about half full. The contents were not examined. The male was identified at the site. Considerable time had passed and the actual time of death was not determined.
The witness stated that Mr. Anderson was shadowing him at the scene and identified the male as someone he had seen at the pub that night.
PC Rhoden said that Mr. Anderson told him he had seen the male at the pub around 1:30 a.m., and that the male was intoxicated and arguing with another male and female.
Mr. Anderson was contacted again later and asked to provide information about details of the night. Through Mr. Anderson, he asked for a statement from Mr. MacLaurin. Both statements were received by email. Mr. Anderson sent his statement on January 27th and Mr. MacLaurin sent one on February 4th, 2010.
PC Rhoden went to the Riverbend a week later, with Detective Plunkett, to interview staff. He stated that this would have been the first day for Agnes to be back in the establishment to work.
During PC Rhoden’s interview, Helen told him that they are usually open until 1:30 a.m., but closed at midnight on January 23rd. She told him there were less than twenty people in the establishment at that time. She did not observe anyone who was intoxicated.
During his interview with Agnes, she told PC Rhoden that a female patron was drinking vodka and tonic. The female was with a man who was wearing a snowmobile suit.
Agnes confirmed that Helen was not serving that night, but was in the next room watching TV.
When PC Rhoden showed Agnes a picture of Mr. S., she confirmed that this male was in the bar that night and he had purchased two glasses of rye and had paid cash.
Mr. S. and another male friend came in wearing snowmobile clothes and were in the bar less than an hour.
When interviewing Ms Helen Cheung, Ms Cheung was informed that charges could be laid. Ms Cheung stated that she did not over serve anyone and had stopped working on January 23rd at 9 p.m. She stayed watching TV, since she helps Ms Chee if the bar becomes busy.
Referring to Exhibit #5, PC Rhoden asked Helen about the receipt. The date on the receipt was January 24, 2010, 1:20 a.m. The receipt was for $45.00.
Ms Cheung told the officer that she closed early that night, around 12 a.m. She told him that she had not served the two males but recalled the two males being in the bar and arguing loudly. This was around 11 p.m. and they were the last to the leave the bar and seemed “ok.” This concluded the interview.
PC Rhoden stated that the receipt found on the deceased was for $45.00 (exhibit #5), but the wife of the deceased had provided a MasterCard statement that showed $62.00 was paid to the Riverbend.
Mr. MacFarlane informed PC Rhoden that he was home, socializing outdoors in the area of an ice rink. Around 10:30 p.m. Mr. S. came by on his snowmobile; he saw Mr. S. with a king can of beer, rye in a flask and was aware that Mr. S. had various other beers on him. None of this was seen being consumed.
Mr. MacFarlane went to the Riverbend with Mr. S. around 11:30 p.m. He could not say how much Mr. S. had to drink. Mr. MacFarlane had a couple of beers and did not pay. He did not recall any argument and did not remember if Mr. S. ordered a rye just before leaving the establishment. He was not sure where they were sitting at the bar with the female patron. Mr. MacFarlane left the bar with Mr. S. and the female patron around 1 a.m. They parted outside and Mr. MacFarlane went home.
PC Rhoden noted that Mr. MacFarlane contradicted himself a couple of times about who left the bar with him.
A delay in the investigation occurred when the officer had difficulty tracking down Ms L. Ms L. told him she was at the pub on January 23, 2010. She had one drink, but did not recall what she was drinking, what others were drinking and did not recall any argument while on the premises.
PC Rhoden stated he did an interview with Jim Kelly on February 24, 2010 by telephone call; Mr. Kelly is a neighbour of Mr. MacFarlane and he had loaned Mr. MacFarlane his snow machine that night. He confirmed seeing Mr. S. at the skating party on the creek around 10:10 p.m.
Mr. Kelly told PC Rhoden that he never saw Mr. S. drinking and that he appeared sober. He emailed a statement to PC Rhoden that same day, after the interview.
On cross-examination PC Rhoden, confirmed that he was lead investigator. In response to questions he indicated that in determining how and when the accident happened, all witnesses were to be interviewed. These people would have been with Mr. S. that night. His focus would be to determine the sobriety of Mr. S., and to understand the events that led to the fatal accident.
He stated that, in his opinion, all the relevant witnesses were interviewed. When asked why he did not interview the two men playing pool with Mr. S., Mr. McWilliams and Mr. H., he replied that he felt they would be biased as one of the males was related to Mr. S., whereas both Mr. Anderson and Mr. MacLaurin would be unbiased witnesses.
PC Rhoden stated that he was told the two males in the poolroom played four games of pool and then went home, leaving Ms L., Mr. S. and Mr. MacFarlane at the bar. He was aware that Ms Nicol and Ms F. were at the pub that night, as well.
PC Rhoden confirmed that it is important to get evidence on a timely basis. He said that information obtained weeks later possibly would not be as fresh in a person’s memory unless it is something severe. In this case, he believed that a person would recall details.
The witness stated that he chose not to have contact with everyone who had contact with Mr. S. that night. He stated that Mr. Anderson’s statement was unbiased and he did do some other interviews after getting that statement. He stated that it was a mistake not to interview Mr. H. and McWilliams.
On January 26th he called Mr. Anderson on the phone, asking him to send a statement by email. During the call, Mr. Anderson told him the Riverbend had been involved in other alcohol offences. PC Rhoden did not ask for details but later stated that Mr. Anderson’s statement suggests that the Riverbend may have been a contributing factor.
He did not recall asking Inspector Rowntree if there were other violations relating to the Riverbend. To further questions, PC Rhoden stated that Inspector Rowntree had received two previous complaints regarding the Riverbend and on inspection, the Riverbend was found to be in compliance.
PC Rhoden confirmed that Mr. Anderson offered to help and provided a statement. Mr. Anderson contacted Mr. MacLaurin to get a statement from him, too. He did not recall how he received Mr. MacLaurin’s statement.
The officer confirmed that Exhibit #7, contained, in part contents of an email, but did not contain the entire message. He received Mr. MacLaurin’s statement via Mr. Anderson, by email. He did not interview Mr. MacLaurin, since Mr. Anderson was seeing him and could ask for the statement. This statement was not received until late March. He stated that it was not a detailed statement, but did not follow up.
PC Rhoden stated that he did not coach Mr. Anderson on how to do the witness statement; he just gave him general expectations.
In response to questions, PC Rhoden stated that on January 24th, he was tied up at the scene of the accident. He contacted the Licensee on January 26th, for the first time and agreed to arrange for an interpreter for Agnes since she did not speak English very well.
He was not able to arrange for this.
He confirmed that Ms Agnes Chee co-operated, agreed to be interviewed without an interpreter present and answered all his questions. Although English is not her first language, he felt that they understood each other. The interview was not recorded and he did not take notes as Detective Plunkett was doing this. He stated he may have used the notes of Det. Plunkett to refresh his memory. He was not aware if there is a protocol or policy about interviewing in this manner.
He acknowledged receiving a phone call from a law firm representing the Licensee, asking if he intended to do a follow up interview. He delayed returning that call. At the time, he was preparing a search warrant for a receipt requested on January 24th.
PC Rhoden confirmed that Helen was willing to come in for an interview, after speaking with her lawyer. He stated that civilians would not be nervous during an interview, but suspects would be. He acknowledged that during the interview with Helen, she stated that she did not remember seeing Mr. S.
The witness acknowledged that the interview was 10 days after the fatality and initially Agnes did not recall Mr. S. being in the establishment. He did not ask her about the sobriety of the two males and female, knowing that the answer would be that they were fine. He already had a witness to intoxication of patrons.
PC Rhoden stated that during Ms Cheung’s interview, she told him she was not working that night, but was watching TV in the restaurant area of the establishment. She agreed to be interviewed alone, even though she had been advised that she could have a lawyer present.
On February 4th, Helen Cheung showed him the summary of receipts for that day (Exhibits 9 and 10). He agreed that there was a time difference and that 12:35 was actually 11:35, as the register time did not change with daylight saving time. He did not request a copy of the receipt that Mr. S. signed. He stated that Ms Cheung was co-operative during the interview and never said that she served or that the patrons were intoxicated.
He did not ask for Mr. S.’s MasterCard receipt and stated that Ms Cheung did not offer information about the bar closing time, or offer the credit card receipt. He noted that she did not refuse to answer any of his questions.
It was March 15, 2010 when PC Rhoden executed a search warrant and asked for the MasterCard receipt (Exhibit # 6) and asked for all the receipts for January 24 and 25th, 2010. The MasterCard receipt was missing; Helen did not tell him where it was and then said it was with her lawyer.
PC Rhoden interviewed Mr. MacFarlane on February 18, 2010, saying he had a hard time tracking him down. His notes were made when he reviewed the Investigative Action Report and reviewed the videotape of the interview. He stated that a witness would remember details on a major event, even if interviewed a month later.
Both Mr. MacFarlane and Mr. Kelly told the officer that Mr. S. seemed fine at the ice rink on the river. Mr. MacFarlane did not recall any argument at the Riverbend and left to go home alone. Mr. MacFarlane offered the cell phone number for Ms L.
PC Rhoden interviewed Ms L. on March 9th saying he had difficulty setting up the interview time. He did not question her about her sobriety during the interview or that of other male patrons. Ms L. told him that Mr. S. was talking loudly, but was fine. Neither she nor Mr. MacFarlane purchased drinks that night and she had one drink.
She did not recall telling Mr. S. to go home to his wife and children.
On questioning, PC Rhoden agreed that a raccoon had been hit on the trail, which was dark, and stated that Mr. S’s snow machine was capable of speeds up to 100 km/h. The police did not know where Mr. S. went after leaving the Riverbend and did not know time of death, which would have been between 1:15 a.m. and 7 a.m.
PC Rhoden acknowledged that Mr. S’s cell phone data had been wiped clean and returned to the wife of Mr. S. The toxicology report for Mr. S. indicated that there was alcohol in his system. Nothing else showed up.
PC Rhoden stated that, at the pub, he was able to confirm that the times on the receipt were one hour behind. If a receipt said 12:20 a.m., it would have actually been an hour earlier.
PC Melissa Plunkett stated that during the investigation she made her notes during the interviews done by PC Rhoden and immediately after. She was present in the room for the interviews done in person and was in a separate room, monitoring those interviews done on video. She did not recall where PC Rhoden went when he left the interview rooms.
For the interviews at Riverbend, on February 4, 2010, she was the scribe. The interviews were conducted in a separate room and out of the hearing distance of others.
Ms Chee stated in the interview that the hours of operation were Thursday to Sunday from 11 a.m. to 3 a.m., but sometimes they would close earlier, if not busy. On Saturday, January 23rd, the pub closed early since there were fewer than twenty people present.
During the interview with Ms Chee, she recalled that there was a female wearing a snowmobile suit talking with two males in the bar. She recalled that Mr. S. ordered two rye drinks.
Helen Cheung was interviewed at the same table in the pub and started by saying that she did not over serve anyone. PC Plunkett said that in answer to questions, Ms Cheung said the Riverbend was not busy that night and she locked the doors before midnight. Her husband, James, cashed out at 11:35 p.m. The receipt says 12:35 a.m. because the time did not change with daylight saving time.
Ms Cheung, during the interview, stated that she was watching a movie and not interacting with patrons. She stated she did speak with Mr. MacFarlane and Mr. S. when they got into an argument. Mr. MacFarlane was talking loudly and Mr. S. was fine. In answer to a question from PC Rhoden about their condition, she said “a little bit.”
On March 15th, PC Plunkett was back to execute a search warrant with PC Rhoden and Inspector Rowntree from the Alcohol & Gaming Commission of Ontario (“AGCO”). She stated that when she tallied the receipts, one receipt was missing.
During the interview with Mr. MacFarlane on February 18, 2010, PC Plunkett was in another room watching on a monitor. Mr. MacFarlane said he had two beers at the Riverbend and did not know how much Mr. S. had to drink.
When they met at the ice rink, Mr. MacFarlane said he noted that Mr. S. had a king can of beer on him and had more beer and rye on his person.
On March 10, 2010, Ms L. was in the police station for a taped interview.
PC Plunkett stated that all her notes were given to PC Rhoden.
In cross-examination PC Plunkett stated that she was aware Ms Chee was not a strong English speaker and that her English vocabulary was marginal. She stated that Ms Chee did not request an interpreter and did not recall PC Rhoden saying he was going to bring an interpreter.
PC Plunkett did not recall if Ms Chee was asked about the sobriety of Mr. S.
During the interview with Helen Cheung, PC Plunkett recalled that she said she was not serving, but was watching a movie and having a glass of wine. It would be difficult to see the bar area when seated in the restaurant part of the establishment.
PC Plunkett did not recall questions about an argument.
During the interview with Mr. MacFarlane, he denied having an argument or dispute with Mr. S. and Ms L.
During the interview with Ms L., she stated that she did not know what Mr. S. was drinking and said that he seemed ok.
PC Plunkett stated that she did an analysis of the accident details, which is in the Investigative Action Report of January 24, 2010. She had not reviewed all of Mr. Anderson’s statement prior to the interviews. She was told that a flask was found with Mr. S at the scene of the accident.
In this analysis she wrote what transpired saying that this collision took place on Sunday, January 24, 2010, sometime between the hours of 1:30 a.m. and 7:10 a.m. Her report states that Mr. S. was driving a Polaris snowmobile, northbound on Rideau River. Mr. S. struck a raccoon and proceeded to continue northbound.
Mr. S. must have realized the north shoreline was fast approaching and attempted to avoid the shoreline by steering hard to the left; this caused him to lose control and the snowmobile to start sliding sideways.
The right track then got caught in the ice, causing the snowmobile to become airborne; Mr. S. was ejected from the snowmobile and subsequently struck a tree, headfirst.
Mr. S. came to rest on the ice surface, approximately 10 feet south of the tree. The snowmobile came to rest on the north side of the tree facing southwest.
Mr. S. suffered fatal injuries and was pronounced deceased on the scene.
In response to questions from the Panel, PC Plunkett clarified that Ms Cheung said she had interacted with the patrons but she did not serve them.
Andrew Rowntree, a liquor inspector with the AGCO since September 2006 stated that he knows Ms Cheung and her husband James, as owners of the Riverbend.
He knew of the police investigation relating to Mr. S. and that there was a snowmobile accident. When he attended the establishment on March 15, 2010, his role was to assist police with the search warrant and to observe for any possible LLA violations.
At 10:23 a.m. on March 15th he attended the Riverbend with PCs Rhoden and Plunkett.
He noted that there was construction occurring in the dining area. A wall was being constructed in the restaurant section, so he asked if the Licensee had filed an application with the AGCO. On checking the computer files he did not see an outstanding application relating to the licensed area.
The Licensee told him that a room was being constructed for the times the children were visiting. Mr. Cheung stated that he had not applied for this change to the existing licensed area.
Mr. Rowntree was told that an application would be submitted and he told the Licensee what form to use. He confirmed that this application was submitted (Exhibit #14).
Mr. Rowntree looked at receipts, identified in the search warrant, looking for liquor not purchased on license and looking for documentation relating to interact transactions for the month of January 2010.
Inspector Rowntree found LCBO receipts, beer store receipts, and Osgoode True Value Grocer receipts. He noted that this store has sales of alcohol as a combined agency store. He indicated that the Licensee could not purchase alcohol under the liquor sales licence at an agency store (Exhibit # 12). He indicated that he did not locate the purchases behind the bar.
The Inspector indicated that he had discussions with the Licensee previously about purchases off license. He advised the Licensee that he would be submitting a report about the infractions.
On cross-examination, Inspector Rowntree confirmed that the wall being constructed was to close off the dance floor, only. The bar and pool areas were not changing but the change was in the actual square footage of the premises.
Inspector Rowntree stated that he thought the owners lived above the establishment.
In response to questions from the Panel, Inspector Rowntree indicated that the receipts were in an envelope with a lot of other receipts that related to the month of January.
Licensee’s Evidence
James Kelly is a neighbour of Mr. C. MacFarlane and knew Mr. S. On January 23, 2010, he was at the outdoor ice rink at Mr. MacFarlane’s house. He was at the ice rink around 10 p.m. and stayed about a ½ hour. He had no concerns about Mr. S.’s sobriety.
Mr. Kelly stated that Mr. S. looked like he had just arrived on his snowmobile. He was wearing all of his equipment except for his helmet when around the fire.
He decided not to go to the Riverbend, and offered his snow machine to Mr. MacFarlane, whose machine was broken. He left his machine and walked home, which is about 300 feet away. He did not see the two men leave to go to the pub. He heard about the accident the next morning when he received a call from a friend. That day he saw a police car outside the residence of Mr. S. The officer told him there was an accident, inferring that it was Mr. S. The officer took his name. There was no further contact until he was called to give a statement, which he provided by email.
Amos McWilliams goes to the Riverbend on a regular basis to play pool. On the night in question, he was at the Riverbend with his friends Mr. H, Ms Nicol and Ms F.
Mr. McWilliams stated that on January 23rd, Ms F. drove him while Ms Nicol drove Mr. H. They arrived at 9 p.m. and stayed for about three hours. Mr. McWilliams stated that he was introduced to Mr. S. and Mr. MacFarlane. He noted that Ms L. was also present.
Mr. McWilliams stated that Mr. MacFarlane, Ms L. and Mr. S. came in around 10:30 p.m. to the pool area. All had their ski doo suits on. He did not see them come in the front door of the establishment. They played pool on teams, with the loser buying the drinks.
He bought one drink and others were handed to him by Mr. MacFarlane or Mr. S. He said that Agnes was working that night. Mr. McWilliams recalled having four drinks. He saw Mr. MacFarlane drinking and Mr. S. drinking a beer. He did not know how many drinks they had. He stated that no one was drinking a lot that night. No one was partying; they were there to just play some pool.
Mr. McWilliams stated that he was sober and the others seemed fine.
He stated that Mr. Anderson and Mr. MacLaurin were seated at the bar and did not come to the pool room. He did not see them interact with Mr. MacFarlane, Mr. S. or Ms L. He did not observe any argument.
Mr. McWilliams stated that they left around 12:30 or 12:45 a.m. He recalled that Mr. MacFarlane, Ms L. and Mr. S. were still in the pub.
On cross-examination Mr. McWilliams stated that he had not made notes at the time of the incident. He recalled that Ms F. had picked him up that evening. He drank a beer and two ryes over 3 to 3 ½ hours and was fine. He noted that he was not driving that night.
Agnes Chee is the sister of the Licensee, Helen Cheung. Agnes usually works Thursday to Sunday.
On January 23, 2010, she was working at the pub and Helen was watching TV but not working. It was a quiet night in the pub.
Ms Agnes Chee stated that four young people were at the pool table, and others came in around 9:30 or 10 p.m. Two males, wearing ski doo suits, came in around 11:30 pm. She knew Mr. MacFarlane. She learned later that the other male was Mr. S. Ms L. came in almost at the same time and is a regular at the pub.
Mr. S. ordered three drinks. Ms Chee thought they were two beers, one each for the men, and a vodka for Ms L.
Ms Chee stated that on January 23rd she did not see any customers showing signs of intoxication. She said that Mr. S ordered some drinks for the four people in the pool room. He paid the bill for all the drinks around 1 a.m.
When asked if there was any trouble at the bar that night, Ms Chee stated that there was no argument. She stated that Ms L., Mr. S., and Mr. MacFarlane were loud, but they were always loud. She did not think they were intoxicated.
Ms Chee stated that Helen had contact with Mr. S. and Mr. MacFarlane while doing the debit payment at the table near the dining room at the end of the night.
On cross-examination, Ms Chee stated that Ms Cheung helps when the Riverbend is busy in the evening, but the pub was not busy on January 23rd. Helen had stopped working that day around 7 p.m.
Ms Chee stated that the group of young people was the first group in and that Ms L., Mr. MacFarlane and Mr. S. came in around 11 p.m. They were wearing their ski doo suits. The men were playing pool for drinks and Ms L. was watching. Mr. S. bought drinks for those in the pool room.
Helen Cheung, the Licensee, lives above the Riverbend with her husband and mother. She has owned the pub since 1968.
Referring to Exhibit # 4, she identified the interior locations of the Riverbend. A wall was put up to provide a private space in an area that had been a dance floor and was not being used.
Ms Cheung stated that she was not aware that she would need an application for the change, since nothing changed in relation to seating and areas for patrons. The work was just starting and when the Inspector came in, he told her she had thirty days to make the application. The application was filed (Exhibit 14) on March 31, 2010 and the cheque for the fee was cashed on April 14, 2010.
When asked about liquor purchases, Ms Cheung stated she or her husband makes the purchases and sometimes buys liquor for themselves.
Referring to Exhibit #12, Ms Cheung stated the store staff either did not recognize her husband or were in a rush, and did not ask for a licence number. She stated that she did not have to tell them.
Ms Cheung stated that on January 23rd, the pub was very quiet. She was not working, after helping in the kitchen, around 8 p.m., until she closed the cash around 12 a.m.
Ms Cheung stated that if she closes before a customer leaves, the purchase will go on the receipts for the next day of sales.
Ms Cheung stated that she could overhear people talking; she did not pay attention to what they drank or who was drinking. She heard loud talking and noted that Ms L. is always loud, whether or not she is drinking. When asked if she had to intervene to break up a fight, Ms Cheung stated, “Absolutely, not.”
She came into the bar area at the time Mr. S. was paying the bill. She did not have concerns about intoxication when observing Mr. S.
Ms Cheung’s sister asked how to handle the two extra drinks that had been ordered, since the pre-authorized payment had already gone through. She explained that on a credit card, you run it through twice to add the tip.
She stated that the two males left sometime after 1 a.m. When she checked the cash and locked the doors she saw the two men standing outside, smoking and talking for about 20 to 25 minutes.
Ms Cheung was contacted by police a few days later. She did not remember the exact day. The police called and her husband answered the phone. A meeting and interview was set up for February 4th at the establishment.
Ms Cheung stated that she did not serve. Some people confuse her and her sister, Ms Chee. During the police interview, the officer kept asking if she served and it upset her.
The witness stated that the police did not ask for a follow up interview and did not ask for the credit card receipt on the first visit. She gave the receipt to her lawyer.
On March 9th, the police returned with a search warrant, and told her she was hiding something. She was told something was missing; she had forgotten the receipt was at the lawyer’s. She contacted the lawyer and her lawyer also talked with police.
Ms Cheung stated that the receipt has the wrong time stamp because the machine does not change with daylight saving time. The MasterCard terminal has the right time, as it changes automatically. She stated that once the cash is closed, people might still be in the establishment.
On cross-examination Ms Cheung stated that sometimes she has to close her cash twice in a night, if people remain in the establishment.
She remains in the establishment to lock up at night, even if she is not serving.
In response to questions, Ms Cheung stated that the men were loud and that they were always loud.
She stated that she sent the receipt (Exhibit #6) to her lawyer after the police came to interview her.
Ms Cheung said that Jim Kelly had called to tell her that Mr. S. had been with him and others on the river the night of the accident.
Chris MacFarlane stated he was home on January 23rd and had cleared ice for his children to play hockey. A neighbour, Jim Kelly, lives a few doors away and the Riverbend is about a ¼ mile away.
In the evening, about 10:30 p.m., Mr. S and Jim Kelly had stopped by on their snowmobiles.
Mr. MacFarlane did not offer anyone a beer and he, himself, was not drinking. He did see Mr. S. take a can of beer from his jacket. He stated that Mr. S. seemed fine, he was not staggering and there were no signs of intoxication during the time he was with Mr. S.
At the Riverbend, they entered the premises around 11 p.m. and went to the back room to play pool. He stated that his cousin, B.H., was already there playing pool with friends. Ms L. arrived almost at the same time he did.
Mr. MacFarlane and Mr. S. were both wearing snowmobile jackets and pants when inside the premises. When asked, Mr. MacFarlane stated that he is 6 feet tall and weighs 280 pounds; Mr. S. was a big man, about six feet and 250 to 260 pounds
The witness stated that he had a couple beers while in the Riverbend and maybe one drink toward the end of the evening, prior to leaving just before 1 a.m. He stated that no one in the pool room appeared to be drinking in excess and no one appeared intoxicated.
When told that another witness said he was sweating that night, Mr. MacFarlane stated that he does sweat, especially in a warm room with his snowmobile suit on and clothes on under the snow suit.
Mr. MacFarlane stated that he was watching his own alcohol consumption that night because he had driven on a snowmobile and the sled belonged to Mr. Kelly.
When asked about Mr. S., he stated that he had seen Mr. S. playing pool and did not note any difficulty with his movements, speech or concern about his consumption of alcohol.
He did not observe any argument or confrontation that night.
The bill was settled. He stated that his cousin and Mr S. bought him drinks and he did not purchase any alcohol for himself that night.
He recalled that Mr. S. bought a round of drinks before the end of the evening. He had a rye and Ms L. had a drink. He did not recall seeing Helen serve that night.
When told that a witness saw him leaning on the bar to prop himself up, Mr. MacFarlane stated that he was tired but not intoxicated. He was wearing large boots and heavy pants. His movements may have been interpreted by another as stumbling. He stated again, that he was not intoxicated, he did not have slurred speech and that a person would smell of alcohol even after one beer.
He, Ms L. and Mr. S. left the establishment at the same time. He went directly home and assumed the others did the same.
Mr. MacFarlane stated that the police contacted him at about 5 a.m. to ask if he knew where Mr. S. had gone. He told them the last time he had seen Mr. S. was when they left the Riverbend. He did not know where Mr. S. went after this.
He was interviewed at the police station about a month after the event. He stated that it was hard to know the timelines, especially after a month. He recalled that at the ice rink, he saw Mr. S. with alcohol, rye and beer, on his snow machine, but only saw him drink one beer at the ice rink before going to the Riverbend.
He was playing pool and the team that lost paid for beer. He won one game and his cousin B.H. bought him one beer. He had a drink at the end of the evening and then went home. For most of the evening, Ms L. was at the entrance to the poolroom.
He did not recall how many people were in the Riverbend that night, as they go in and out throughout the night.
In cross-examination, Mr. MacFarlane stated that he did not recall any altercation or argument. He said that it seemed someone was trying to say that there was more said than there was. When he spoke to Ms L., she told him that she did not know what people were talking about.
Mr. MacFarlane learned about the accident the next afternoon. He did provide the police with a statement and when called as a witness, he read the
will say,made some changes and signed it.Christina Nicol, stated that she has worked at the Red Dot Restaurant and Bar as a waitress and bartender. She has a Smart Serve certificate and knows the signs of intoxication. She has had the experience of stopping service to customers due to signs of intoxication, in the course of her job.
Ms Nicol finished work at 10 p.m. on January 23rd and drove to the Riverbend to meet with friends and her fiancé, B.H. They were in the pool room for the evening and she had one or two drinks that night.
Ms Nicol stated that she knew Agnes and Helen and thought that Agnes was serving that night. She saw Ms L., Mr. MacFarlane and another male arrive. She did not know the third person. The four males were playing pool and she was sitting off to the side. Ms Nicol did not recall where Ms L. was during this time and thought she might have been at the bar.
She did not observe any signs of intoxication in the male (who was identified as Mr. S.) or in Mr. MacFarlane. She did not see anyone in the establishment showing signs of intoxication and did not hear any argument or dispute.
Ms Nicol and her friends left around 12 or 12:30 a.m. She thought that Ms L., Mr. MacFarlane and the male left later. She stated that she knew Mr. Anderson and Mr. MacLaurin, having served them breakfast on Sundays at the Red Dot.
On cross-examination Ms Nicol stated that she had started work on January 23rd at 4 p.m. She did not recall if she had been off-roading but stated that it would be a regular activity in the country.
In response to questions she stated that buying a round of drinks could lead to intoxication but it is not a sign of intoxication. She did not recall what people were wearing and did not remember what she was wearing that night. She could not say if the male was sweating but indicated that he might be warm if he was wearing his snowsuit.
Ms Nicol stated that the first time anyone talked to her about the evening of January 23rd, was in 2011 when the Licensee’s counsel interviewed her. Her recollection of events, 13 months later, was from memory.
Ms Nicol did not recall seeing Mr. Anderson or Mr. MacLaurin in the premises that night.
In response to questions from the Panel, Ms Nicol stated that she saw two snowmobiles and a few cars in the parking lot that night. She had not been interviewed by police. Her recollection of times was an approximation.
Reasons/ Analysis / Decision
Re: section 49 of the O.Reg 719/90
This section of the legislation states in part that “the licence holder shall not alter the boundaries of the premises to which the licence applies without the prior written consent of the Registrar…”
Exhibit #13, page 5 outlines the requirements of an application for changes to existing licensed areas, and states in part “you may not sell or serve alcohol in the additional areas unless your licence is amended to include the proposed changes. And if you wish to remove licensed rooms from the licence, you must inform the AGCO within 30 days of the change.”
On March 15, 2010, Inspector Rowntree was in the establishment as part of the team continuing a police investigation and implementing a search warrant. While on the premises, he saw that renovations were underway and he did not have any information about an application for the change being filed.
The Licensee was advised that this was required. The Inspector provided the Licensee with the application and instructions. The application was filed (Exhibit # 14) and signed by Ms Cheung on March 31, 2010.
The Board notes that the Licensee was not removing a licensed room nor adding a new licensed area. The room was being altered with the removal of the dance floor. There was no change to the boundaries of the existing building or to the seating areas. The Board acknowledges that the Licensee may have made an error in judgment, but notes that the Licensee took immediate steps to submit the appropriate application. The Board also notes that the application was accepted and the cheque for the fee was cashed.
The Board is of the view that the application form together with legislation is subject to misinterpretation and the Board accepts that the Licensee took immediate steps to make the appropriate application within the required 30 days.
For this reason the Board DISMISSES the allegation that the Licensee violated section 49 of the O.Reg.
Re: Subsections 31(1) (c) and 33(1) of the O.Reg 719/90
The legislation states in part: “the licence holder may keep for sale, sell and serve, only liquor that the licence holder purchased under licence” and “not permit liquor, other than that purchased by the licence holder under licence from a government store, to be brought onto the premises…”
Inspector Rowntree provided undisputed evidence (Exhibit 12) that during his inspection he found receipts for liquor purchased off licence.
Ms Cheung stated that her husband would have made those purchases. In evidence she stated that staff at the store did not ask for the licence number and he did not have to provide a licence number unless asked for it. She suggested that the liquor purchase was for personal use.
The Board does not agree with Ms Cheung and notes that it is the responsibility of the licence holder to comply with legislation and ensure that liquor is purchased on licence at all times, providing the required information at the time of any liquor purchase. It is also incumbent on the Licensee to keep personal receipts separate from the business receipts and accounts of the licensed premises.
For this reason the Board FINDS that the Licensee violated subsections 31(1)(c) and 33(1) of the O.Reg.
Re: subsection 45(1) of the O.Reg and section 29 of the LLA
In making a decision the Board must be satisfied through a two-part test. First to establish, on the facts, that there was drunkenness in the licensed establishment under the Licensee’s control and second, that the Licensee knew or ought to have known that the patron was drunk, thereby permitting drunkenness.
The Board has carefully reviewed and considered the evidence, exhibits and written submissions of the parties in this matter. The Board found all the witnesses to have given their evidence in a clear and direct manner but also notes a number of inconsistencies in the evidence of the Registrar’s witnesses and the Licensee’s witnesses. The Board acknowledges that the police investigation was primarily focused on the investigation of a fatality, which may account for the lack of a fulsome investigation into the liquor infractions.
In reaching a decision, the Board was mindful of the scope of the police investigation and remained cognitive of the area of authority of the AGCO. This decision reflects an analysis of evidence as it relates directly to the allegations directed toward the Licensee.
In evidence, three patrons were presented as possibly being intoxicated, Mr. MacFarlane, Mr. S., and Ms L.
After carefully considering all of the evidence, the Board FINDS, on a balance of probabilities, that there is insufficient evidence to make a determination on either the first or second parts of the test. Reasons follow.
In hearing evidence it became clear to the Board that a number of factors contributed to the inconsistencies in evidence and the subsequent lack of sound evidence to make a finding: one witness was not directly contacted by police and submitted his statement through a friend; this friend, who was also a witness had been at the pub the night before as well as being at the accident site the next morning in his duties as a volunteer firefighter; some potential witnesses were never interviewed; one person was interviewed but not called as a witness and the significant delays in contacting some people in the course of the investigation raises a question of the accuracy of their recall of important details. The board explains further.
The Board accepts, as fact, that Mr. S. was involved in a fatal snowmobile accident. The Board accepts the evidence of PC Plunkett and her analysis of the accident scene which states in part that the accident occurred between 1:30 a.m. and 7:10 a.m. Mr. S. struck a raccoon, was steering hard to avoid the shoreline of the river, lost control of his snowmobile, struck a tree and suffered fatal injuries. The Board takes special note of the sensitivity of this incident, given that there was loss of life.
In following the events of the evening, as presented in evidence, the Board accepts the evidence of Mr. Kelly that he had joined his neighbour on the ice rink around 10 p.m. and was not concerned about the sobriety of Mr. S. or Mr. MacFarlane. He had no concerns about loaning Mr. MacFarlane his snow machine to go to the Riverbend, since Mr. MacFarlane’s machine was not operational.
The Board accepts Mr. MacFarlane’s evidence that he was not drinking that day, and had spent the day on an ice rink with his children, skating and having a bonfire. Mr. S arrived around 10:30 p.m. and opened his own can of beer. The two men decided to go to the Riverbend, arriving around 11 p.m. Mr. MacFarlane stated that he did not have any concerns about the sobriety of Mr. S.
Mr. MacFarlane stated he had a couple of beers and one drink before leaving the Riverbend. He stated that he is a person who easily sweats and on that night he was in a warm room and was wearing large boots and heavy snow pants. The Board accepts his open and forthright statements that he was tired that night, having been outdoors most of the day, that there would be an odour of alcohol, even after one beer, that his movements, while wearing heavy snow gear, could have been interpreted as stumbling and that his speech was not slurred.
Mr. MacFarlane and Mr. S. joined a number of people in the pool room at the Riverbend.
Ms Nicol, Ms F., Mr. H., and Mr. McWilliams were the patrons who spent the most time with the three individuals in question. Ms Nicol has a Smart Serve certificate and experience working at a nearby licensed establishment. The Board accepts her evidence and that of Mr. McWilliams that they did not see any of the three individuals intoxicated and did not witness any argument or confrontation.
Mr. McWilliams and Mr. H. were not interviewed by police, with PC Rhoden telling the Board that there was a concern about bias since Mr. H. was related to one of the males. PC Rhoden stated that in retrospect, they should have been interviewed and the Board is in agreement.
Mr. Anderson and Mr. MacLaurin, in evidence, stated that they had observed patrons yelling and being rowdy and leaning on the bar. They also described signs of intoxication, including saying that the female was uncoordinated, stumbling, and her speech was slurred, that Mr. MacFarlane was stumbling, bumping into him and had slurred speech, and Mr. S. had a hard time walking, had slurred speech, smelled of alcohol and was sweating.
The Board accepts that Mr. Anderson gave his evidence in an open and direct manner. PC Rhoden stated that he relied on Mr. Anderson’s evidence as being from a person without bias. However the Board has a concern, both from the statement provided to police (Exhibit #1) and evidence received. Mr. Anderson was at the pub the night before and had seen Mr. S, and was also on the scene of the fatal accident the next morning assisting police as part of his duties as a volunteer firefighter. He also told police that the Riverbend had other alcohol offences. The Board notes that Mr. Rowntree reported that though there had been two previous complaints, on inspection, the Licensee was found to be in compliance. The Board does not know how Mr Anderson learned of any matters relating to inspections of the establishment.
For these reasons, the evidence of Mr. Anderson.may have been somewhat influenced by his stated desire to help police and his presence and experience at the scene of the fatal accident.
In addition to this, the Board is concerned about discrepancies in the evidence of Mr. Anderson and Mr. MacLaurin. Mr. Anderson stated they arrived at 12:45 a.m., coming in separate vehicles. Mr. MacLaurin stated they arrived together in the same vehicle at 12 Midnight. Mr. Anderson stated that Ms L. bought them both a drink, but Mr. MacLaurin stated that Ms L. purchased a drink only for Mr. Anderson.
Mr Anderson provided his statement on January 26th, a few days after the accident and Mr MacLaurin, although he did not provide his statement until February 4th, had been in discussion with Mr Anderson prior to writing his statement. The Board believes that such details should have been recalled with more clarity and continuity.
Mr. S. and Mr MacFarlane were in the establishment that night for approximately 1½ hours, wearing their snowmobile suits and heavy boots. This outdoor clothing likely contributed to the sweating, and unsteady gait witnessed by Mr. Anderson and Mr. MacLaurin.
The Board also accepts that the Licensee was co-operative during the police interviews, and when the search warrant was implemented. The evidence of Ms Chee, and Ms Cheung, the Licensee, was given in a direct manner.
Their evidence that it was a quiet night was corroborated by other patrons present that night. It is reasonable for the Licensee, who lives on the premises, to remain nearby, but be off duty and in the next room, watching TV. Ms Cheung was in the bar, near closing time when the three patrons were leaving and stated that they were not intoxicated. Ms Chee, who was serving that night, also said that the patrons, who were known to her, were not intoxicated. Again, their testimony was corroborated by the witnesses who were playing pool with Mr. S. and Mr. MacFarlane and who had seen Ms L.
Ms Chee who was working that night, stated that Mr. S. was always loud. Ms Cheung also stated that she saw the two men when she was preparing to close out for the night. She stated that she did not see signs of intoxication.
The Board must also give consideration to the allegation that the Licensee may have permitted riotous, quarrelsome, violent or disorderly conduct to occur on the premises
Mr. Anderson stated that he only heard bits and pieces of a conversation between the two males and female, leaving it open to misinterpretation about there being an argument.
Mr. MacLaurin stated he could not hear the conversations at all, and did not know the patrons.
None of the other witnesses corroborated their evidence. However the evidence from witnesses, who were both patrons and staff, was consistent and clear that although the two males were loud, there was no argument or altercation. The Board accepts their evidence. Mr. MacFarlane was present as a witness and is a large man, and described Mr. S as a large man, as well. He admitted both are loud talkers. Ms Chee, who was serving that night, also indicated that the three patrons always talk loudly.
The Board also heard evidence from numerous other witnesses who stated that the male patrons were loud, but that they were known to speak loudly. All the other patrons who came as witnesses denied that there had been an argument or altercation of any kind.
The Board is concerned about the delays that occurred in contacting key witnesses. Some potential witnesses, including Mr. H., Ms F. and Mr. McWilliams, were never interviewed by police. Ms L., one of the patrons thought to be intoxicated, was not interviewed until almost a month later and was not called as a witness.
Having carefully considered all the evidence and submissions, the Board finds that, on a balance of probabilities, there is insufficient evidence to make a finding that that the Licensee permitted drunkenness or riotous, quarrelsome or disorderly conduct on the premises or sold to a person who was or appeared to be intoxicated.
As such, the Board DISMISSES the allegations that the Licensee breached subsection 45(1) of the O.Reg and section 29 of the LLA.
Conclusion
For the above reasons, the Board FINDS the Licensee contravened subsections 31(1)(c) and 33(1) of the O.Reg and DISMISSES the allegations of violations of section 29 of the LLA and section 49 and subsection 45(1) of the O.Reg.
The 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 28th DAY OF OCTOBER , 2011
KIRSTI HUNT, VICE-CHAIR JOAN LOUGHEED, BOARD MEMBER