Dalila Giusti

Powerhouse Corporation appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) decision granting it a liquor licence but imposing a condition prohibiting outdoor amplified music at its Cabana pool bar.

The City of Toronto cross-appealed, arguing the licence should have been refused entirely because Powerhouse's application was an abusive attempt to circumvent existing noise conditions on the venue's prior licence.

The Divisional Court dismissed both appeals.

The Court held the LAT correctly interpreted its limited jurisdiction under s. 6(2)(h) of the Liquor Licence Act and properly applied an objective standard to assess noise disturbances affecting Toronto Island residents.

The Court also rejected Powerhouse's procedural fairness arguments regarding an incomplete hearing transcript and alleged lack of notice.

The appellant applied for a liquor licence for a premises operating as Rebel and Cabana Pool Bar, seeking increased capacity and fewer restrictions than the previous licence.

The Registrar issued a Notice of Proposal to Review the Application, and several community groups objected, primarily citing noise disturbances from the outdoor patio.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that while the indoor capacity increase was in the public interest, the outdoor capacity increase and the playing of amplified music outdoors were not, due to the significant noise impact on the Toronto Island community.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to issue the licence subject to strict conditions, including a prohibition on amplified music directed towards any outdoor area and a reduced outdoor capacity.

The appellant appealed the Niagara Escarpment Commission's conditional approval of a development permit allowing the applicant to convert the upper floor of an existing barn into a commercial rental facility for weekend weddings.

The central issue was whether the proposed wedding barn constituted an 'on-farm diversified use' (OFDU) under the new Niagara Escarpment Plan.

The Hearing Panel found that the proposed development, limited to 30 events annually with a maximum of 175 guests, was secondary to the principal agricultural use of the property, compatible with the rural character of the area, and met all applicable development criteria.

The appeal was dismissed and the Commission's decision was confirmed.