Aviva Harari

The Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming proposed a 14-day suspension of the appellant's liquor licence following an incident where a security staff member assaulted a patron.

The Tribunal previously found the appellant in breach of s. 45(1) of O. Reg. 719/90.

On the issue of sanction, the Registrar sought a 10 to 12-day suspension, while the appellant argued for no suspension, noting the patron initiated the altercation and the appellant had no prior disciplinary history.

The Tribunal found a 10 to 12-day suspension unduly harsh but determined a suspension was necessary for specific deterrence, as the appellant provided no evidence of corrective action taken with its security staff.

A two-day suspension was ordered.

The Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming issued a Notice of Proposal to revoke the appellant's liquor licence, alleging the appellant permitted unlawful gambling and served alcohol outside prescribed hours.

The appellant appealed to the Licence Appeal Tribunal.

The Tribunal found that the presence of casino-style gaming machines with kill switches and reset buttons in a back room, along with video evidence of their use, established on a balance of probabilities that unlawful gambling was permitted.

However, the Tribunal found the evidence insufficient to prove alcohol was served outside prescribed hours, accepting the appellant's testimony that the bottles contained non-alcoholic flavourings.

The Tribunal found a breach of s. 45(1) of O. Reg. 719/90 but no breach of s. 25(1), and requested written submissions on the appropriate sanction.

The appellant appealed the Registrar's proposal to refuse his application for registration as a gaming assistant (runner) at a bingo hall.

The Registrar cited the appellant's past employment history at OLG Woodbine Slots, which included disciplinary action for mishandling tip boxes and alleged FINTRAC violations, as well as a 2012 conditional discharge for breaching a restraining order.

The Tribunal found the Registrar's evidence regarding the FINTRAC violations relied on unproven hearsay and that the other incidents were insufficient to deny registration.

The Tribunal ordered the Registrar to register the appellant as a category 2 gaming assistant, subject to conditions requiring him to report any new criminal charges or written disciplinary actions for two years.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Proposal by the Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming to review its application for a liquor licence for a cafe and ice cream shop.

Local residents objected to the application, primarily citing concerns about potential noise from the patio and interior at night.

The Tribunal found that the objectors' subjective concerns were not supported on a valid objective basis and that they failed to establish that granting the licence was not in the public interest.

The Tribunal approved the application subject to conditions regarding signage and a contact number for complaints.

The Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming issued a Notice of Proposal to suspend the appellant's liquor licence for 14 days, alleging two incidents of permitting disorderly conduct and failing to take reasonable measures to deter it.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the licensee in breach of s. 45(1) of the regulation for an incident where a security staff member excessively assaulted a patron.

However, the Tribunal found no breach of s. 45.1 for a separate incident involving a patron's altercation with a police officer, as the security staff acted reasonably by stepping back once police took control.

The matter of sanction was deferred for written submissions.

The Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming proposed to suspend the appellant's liquor licence for 30 days for permitting an intoxicated person to remain on the premises.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the patron was intoxicated and that the bartender, despite cutting the patron off, allowed him to continue consuming alcohol and migrate to other areas of the bar.

The Tribunal concluded that the appellant permitted drunkenness on the premises contrary to s. 45(1) of O. Reg. 719/90 and ordered written submissions on sanction.

The appellant licensee appealed a Notice of Proposal to suspend its liquor licence.

The Tribunal previously found the appellant breached the Liquor Licence Act by selling liquor to an intoxicated person and permitting drunkenness, which tragically resulted in the patron's death in an accident on the way home.

In determining the appropriate sanction, the Tribunal weighed factors including public protection, deterrence, and the licensee's lack of remedial measures.

The Tribunal ordered a 55-day suspension of the liquor licence.

The Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming issued a Notice of Proposal to revoke the appellant's liquor licence following an incident where police responded to a disturbance outside the licensed premises.

The police were obstructed from entering the premises, and upon entry, observed signs of after-hours alcohol service and consumption.

The Tribunal found the appellant in breach of multiple provisions of the Liquor Licence Act and its regulations, including obstructing an inspection, failing to maintain control, permitting disorderly conduct, and serving alcohol outside prescribed hours.

The Tribunal also found a breach of a licence condition requiring a manager's presence.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the allegation under s. 6(2)(d) of the Act regarding the licensee's past conduct and integrity.

Written submissions on sanction were ordered.

The appellant appealed an Order of Monetary Penalty of $3,000 issued by the Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming for failing to clear signs of service by 2:45 a.m. and permitting the consumption of a controlled substance (marijuana) on the premises during three Special Occasion Permits.

The appellant failed to attend the hearing.

Based on the testimony of an inspector who observed patrons with alcohol after 4:00 a.m. and individuals openly smoking marijuana, the Tribunal found the allegations proven on a balance of probabilities and confirmed the monetary penalty.

The Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming proposed to suspend the appellant's liquor licence for 60 days after a patron was struck and killed by a vehicle shortly after leaving the appellant's premises.

The Tribunal found that the appellant breached the Liquor Licence Act by serving the patron when he was or appeared to be intoxicated, and by permitting drunkenness on the premises.

However, the Tribunal found no evidence that the appellant engaged in practices encouraging immoderate consumption.

The matter was left open for submissions on the appropriate sanction.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Proposed Order to revoke his gaming supplier registration.

During inspections of the appellant's convenience store, inspectors and police found counterfeit DVDs, unmarked cigarettes, and illegal video gaming machines.

The appellant repeatedly lied to inspectors about the presence of these items and breached an Order of Immediate Suspension by replacing lottery tickets he was instructed to remove.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant's actions demonstrated a pattern of dishonesty and lack of respect for the law, providing reasonable grounds to believe he would not act in accordance with the law, honesty, or integrity.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to carry out the Proposed Order to revoke the registration.

The Appellant brought a motion to extend the time for filing his appeal of a Notice of Proposed Order to refuse registration under the Gaming Control Act.

The Appellant failed to appeal within the 15-day period, and the Registrar issued a Final Order.

The Appellant filed an appeal approximately 10 weeks late.

The Appellant failed to appear at the motion hearing and provided no evidence.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion for an extension of time and closed the file.

The appellant, a restaurant operator, applied to change conditions on its liquor licence to permit amplified music on its outdoor patio.

The Registrar issued a Notice of Proposal to refuse the changes, which the appellant appealed.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant failed to prove a change in circumstances that would justify altering the conditions, which had been voluntarily accepted upon transfer of the licence.

Furthermore, based on extensive testimony from local residents and a municipal council resolution opposing the application, the Tribunal concluded that allowing the changes would not be in the public interest, as the existing conditions were necessary to maintain a peaceful balance between the commercial establishments and the community.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal previously found that the appellant breached the Liquor Licence Act and its licence conditions by failing to install security cameras, allowing an excluded person on the premises, and failing to facilitate an inspection.

The Registrar sought revocation of the liquor licence.

The Tribunal found that while the breaches were serious and impeded the regulator's ability to ensure compliance, revocation was unwarranted given the lack of previous violations.

The Tribunal ordered a 21-day suspension of the appellant's liquor licence.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Proposal by the Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming to suspend its liquor licence.

Following a pre-hearing conference, the parties reached a settlement.

The appellant admitted all allegations in the Notice of Proposal and consented to a 21-day suspension of its liquor licence.

The Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming issued a Notice of Proposal to revoke the appellant's liquor licence due to alleged breaches of the Liquor Licence Act and licence conditions.

The conditions were imposed after an incident involving an individual, Inderjeet Joshi, who was subsequently excluded from the premises.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant breached conditions by allowing Joshi on the premises, failing to install required security cameras, and failing to facilitate an inspection.

The Tribunal requested submissions on the appropriate sanction.

The appellant, a licensed establishment, brought a motion to dismiss the Registrar's Notice of Proposal to revoke its liquor licence.

The appellant argued that the Registrar's delay in issuing the notice constituted an abuse of process, and that insufficient disclosure and the death of a key investigating inspector impaired its ability to make full answer and defence.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding no inordinate delay or significant prejudice to justify a stay of proceedings.

The Tribunal also held that the disclosure provided was adequate and that the unavailability of the inspector did not prejudice the appellant, as the related overcrowding allegation was withdrawn and direct complainants would testify regarding the noise complaints.

The appellants, operators of a licensed establishment, appealed a $2,000 monetary penalty imposed by the Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming for permitting disorderly conduct on the premises.

The incident involved the forceful removal of a patron who had made remarks about an allegedly underage bartender.

The Tribunal found that while the licensees had the right to ask the patron to leave, they escalated the situation by using excessive force, dragging the patron out, and failing to call the police.

The Tribunal concluded that the licensees exercised poor judgment and thereby permitted quarrelsome, violent, or disorderly conduct to occur, confirming the monetary penalty.

The appellant applied for an additional capacity of 42 persons for its outdoor patio.

Area residents and the City of Toronto objected, citing ongoing noise issues that disrupted the peaceable enjoyment of their properties.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the objectors met the onus of establishing that granting the additional capacity was not in the public interest, given the history of noise complaints and the patio's location in a residential neighbourhood.

The application was denied.

The Applicant appealed a Notice of Proposed Order from the Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming refusing her registration as a Category 2 gaming assistant.

The Registrar based the refusal on the Applicant's past criminal convictions, failure to disclose 2006 convictions on her application, outstanding debts, and unfiled tax returns.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the Applicant's failure to disclose the 2006 convictions was an unintentional oversight and gave little weight to the hearsay evidence regarding police reports.

Considering her exemplary employment record at a bingo hall over the past four years and her rehabilitation from drug addiction, the Tribunal concluded her past conduct could be excused and directed the Registrar not to carry out the proposed order.