Faye Kidman

Yongehurst Distillery Corp. brought a motion for costs against two added parties (objectors) following a successful hearing to review its liquor licence application.

Yongehurst alleged the added parties acted unreasonably, frivolously, vexatiously, or in bad faith by delaying proceedings, failing to comply with disclosure orders, refusing to settle, and presenting incomplete evidence.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that while the proceedings were lengthy and caused Yongehurst financial hardship, the added parties' conduct did not rise to the level required to justify a costs award under Rule 19.1.

The Appellants appealed a proposal by the Registrar to revoke their liquor licences due to breaches of conditions.

The Tribunal previously found that conditions on both licences were breached when a former manager failed to report criminal charges and continued to be involved in management.

On the issue of sanction, the Registrar sought revocation, while the Appellants sought a three-day suspension.

The Tribunal ordered a 5-day suspension for one restaurant and a 10-day suspension for the other, along with new conditions strictly prohibiting the former manager from entering the premises or having any involvement in the businesses.

The Registrar of Alcohol, Gaming and Racing issued a Notice of Proposal to revoke the liquor licences of two restaurants owned by the appellant, alleging breaches of licence conditions restricting her son's involvement in the businesses and the provision of false information on applications.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant breached a condition on each licence by allowing her son to be involved in management and by his failure to report criminal charges.

However, the Tribunal concluded that the appellant did not knowingly provide false information on her applications and that her conduct did not afford reasonable grounds for belief that she would not carry on business in accordance with the law and with integrity and honesty.

The parties were directed to make written submissions on the appropriate sanction.

The Registrar of Alcohol, Gaming and Racing issued an Order of Monetary Penalty of $3,000 against the appellant, alleging it permitted drinking games that encouraged immoderate consumption of liquor and failed to maintain control over the premises.

The allegations stemmed from patrons playing dice games.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the dice games were culturally significant and not intended to promote drinking, and there was no evidence of intoxication or a policy encouraging immoderate consumption.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar not to carry out the monetary penalty.

The appellants applied for a liquor licence for a new establishment.

A local resident objected, citing noise, parking, and patron behaviour issues associated with the previous licenced establishment at the same location.

The Registrar issued a Notice of Proposal to review the application, and the appellants appealed to the Licence Appeal Tribunal.

The Tribunal found that the objector's concerns were speculative and based on the unfounded assumption that the new establishment would operate like the previous one.

The appellants provided evidence that they intended to operate a different type of establishment and had taken steps to mitigate noise.

The Tribunal concluded that the objector failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that granting the licence was not in the public interest.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to approve the application without conditions.

The appellant appealed an Order of Monetary Penalty of $2,500 issued by the Registrar of Alcohol, Gaming and Racing for permitting drunkenness and failing to clear signs of service and consumption within 45 minutes after the end of the service period.

At the hearing, the appellant admitted the allegations and requested additional time to pay the fine.

The Tribunal noted it only has jurisdiction to confirm or set aside the penalty under s. 14.1(7) of the Alcohol and Gaming Regulation and Public Protection Act, 1996, and cannot defer payment.

The Tribunal confirmed the monetary penalty.

The appellant appealed an Order of Monetary Penalty of $1,000 issued by the Registrar of Alcohol, Gaming and Racing for failing to clear signs of service and consumption within 45 minutes after the end of the liquor service period.

The Tribunal found the evidence of the AGCO inspectors, who observed a vodka bottle and glasses on a table at 3:01 a.m., to be more reliable than the appellant's evidence.

The Tribunal confirmed the monetary penalty, finding that the appellant breached section 29 of the Regulation.

The Appellant appealed a Notice of Proposal to review its application for an outdoor liquor licence after a neighbouring resident objected.

The neighbour raised concerns about potential noise, unruly patrons, and alleged non-compliance with municipal by-laws.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the Appellant had met all municipal and building requirements and that the neighbour's concerns about noise and unruly behaviour were speculative and not supported by objective evidence.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to issue the outdoor liquor licence subject to conditions on operating hours.

The Appellant's request for costs was denied.

The appellant appealed an Order of Monetary Penalty issued by the Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming for exceeding the licensed capacity of its premises on St. Patrick's Day.

Two AGCO inspectors conducted independent counts and found 201 and 192 patrons, respectively, exceeding the licensed capacity of 160.

The Tribunal accepted the inspectors' evidence over the appellant's indirect evidence and confirmed the $1,000 monetary penalty.

The Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming issued an Order of Monetary Penalty of $2,000 against the appellant establishment for allegedly exceeding its licensed capacity by 10 patrons.

The appellant appealed to the Licence Appeal Tribunal.

The Tribunal found inconsistencies in the inspector's evidence and noted that only one count was performed, which was not a precise 'count-out'.

The Tribunal concluded the Registrar failed to establish on a balance of probabilities that the establishment was over capacity.

The monetary penalty was set aside.

The appellant brought a motion to extend the time to file an appeal of an Order of Monetary Penalty issued by the Registrar of Alcohol, Gaming and Racing.

The penalty was imposed for failing to provide required information in advance of a catered event.

The Tribunal applied the four factors from Manuel v. Registrar and found that the appellant lacked a bona fide intention to appeal within the time limit, the delay was excessive, and the appellant failed to demonstrate merit to the appeal.

The motion for an extension of time was dismissed.