Ashley An

The Registrar proposed to revoke the appellant's liquor licence due to multiple infractions, including serving alcohol after hours, fire code violations, employing uncertified staff, and breaching specific licence conditions.

The appellant failed to attend the electronic hearing.

Proceeding in the appellant's absence, the Tribunal accepted the uncontroverted evidence of the Registrar's inspectors and witnesses.

The Tribunal found that the appellant contravened the Act and its licence conditions, and that its conduct afforded reasonable grounds for belief that it would not carry on business in accordance with the law and with integrity and honesty.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to carry out the proposal to revoke the licence.

The Registrar issued a Notice of Proposal to suspend the appellant's liquor licence for 14 days following an incident where a firearm was discharged in the establishment and the appellant's directors failed to notify the police, tampered with evidence, and failed to notify the AGCO of corporate changes.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found reasonable grounds to believe the appellant would not carry on business in accordance with the law and with integrity and honesty.

However, the Tribunal determined that a 14-day suspension was not the appropriate sanction.

Instead, the Tribunal directed the Registrar not to carry out the suspension and imposed strict conditions on the licence, including mandatory security cameras, surveillance record retention, and immediate reporting of criminal activity.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Proposal to Suspend a Licence for 14 days issued by the Registrar under the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario Act, 2019.

The proposal followed an incident where a firearm was discharged in the appellant's establishment, and the appellant's directors failed to notify the police, tampered with evidence, and failed to notify the AGCO of corporate changes.

The Tribunal found reasonable grounds to believe the appellant would not carry on business in accordance with the law and with integrity and honesty.

However, the Tribunal determined that a 14-day suspension was not the appropriate sanction and instead directed the Registrar to impose specific conditions on the appellant's licence, including the installation of security cameras and a requirement to immediately report criminal activity.

The Registrar brought a motion requesting a further case conference prior to a hearing regarding a proposed 14-day liquor licence suspension.

The Registrar argued a case conference would ensure the self-represented appellant understood the hearing process and clarify if they had retained counsel.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding no evidence the appellant lacked understanding of the process and noting that representation status could be confirmed directly without requiring Tribunal resources for a case conference.

The appellant applied for a liquor licence for an outdoor patio attached to its restaurant, located on the ground floor of a residential condominium.

Several condominium residents objected, citing concerns about noise from patrons and amplified music.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the objectors failed to establish that issuing the licence was contrary to the public interest, noting the appellant's history of compliance and the fact that the premises would operate as a restaurant, not a nightclub.

However, to balance the needs of the residents, the Tribunal ordered that the licence be subject to a condition prohibiting the sale and service of alcohol on the patio after 11:00 p.m.

The appellant appealed an Order of Monetary Penalty of $1,000 issued by the Registrar for exceeding the indoor capacity of its licensed premises.

An inspector counted 205 persons in an area licensed for 112 persons.

The Tribunal accepted the inspector's evidence over the appellant's witnesses, finding the Registrar established the contravention on a balance of probabilities.

The monetary penalty was confirmed.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Proposal by the Registrar to revoke his licence as a Thoroughbred Horseperson-Groom.

The parties requested an order disposing of the appeal without a hearing on agreed terms.

The Tribunal issued a consent order imposing a condition on the appellant's licence requiring him to advise the Deputy Registrar of any charges, convictions, or findings of guilt.

The Registrar proposed to revoke the cannabis retail operator licence of Havok Global Limited and the cannabis retail manager licence of Dr. Gerald Goldlist, alleging past conduct issues involving Dr. Goldlist and his son, Michael.

The Tribunal found no reasonable grounds to believe Dr. Goldlist would not act in accordance with the law, integrity, or the public interest, noting his 45-year unblemished career as a physician and accepting his explanation regarding a 2018 break-in at an illegal dispensary.

The Tribunal also found that Michael was not an 'interested person' in Havok, as he had no beneficial interest, control, or financing role in the business.

The notices of proposal to revoke the licences were set aside.

The appellant appealed the Registrar's proposed order to refuse to issue him horseperson-groom and horseperson-owner licences under the Horse Racing Licence Act, 1992.

The Registrar refused the licences based on the appellant's extensive criminal and regulatory record, including fraud and securities offences, outstanding restitution orders, and his failure to fully disclose his record on the licence application.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal confirmed the refusal, finding reasonable grounds to believe the appellant would not act in accordance with the law, honesty, and integrity.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Proposal to refuse a cannabis retail operator licence.

The parties reached a settlement and applied for a consent order under s. 4.1 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act to dispose of the matter without a hearing.

The Tribunal granted the consent order, directing that the appellant be bound by the terms of the settlement agreement, which imposed a condition on the licence requiring notification of any charges or convictions.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Proposal to refuse his application for a cannabis retail manager licence.

The Registrar argued the appellant was ineligible due to past conduct, including involvement in an illegal dispensary, a prior conviction for possession for the purpose of trafficking, and outstanding civil litigation involving allegations of bad faith.

The Tribunal found that while the appellant did not intentionally mislead the Registrar on his application, his concerning conduct regarding the illegal dispensary and the serious allegations in the ongoing civil litigation provided reasonable grounds to believe he would not act with honesty, integrity, or in the public interest.

The proposal to refuse the licence was confirmed.

The applicant applied to remove a condition from its liquor licence that restricted patio hours, citing the change of ownership and the negative business impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic as a change of circumstances.

Following a case conference, the Registrar agreed that a change of circumstances had occurred and consented to the removal of the condition in its entirety.

The Tribunal ordered the condition removed on consent and the appeal withdrawn.