3 total
Liquor licence suspended for 25 days for overcrowding and unauthorized alcohol tasting based on joint submission.
The Registrar of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario issued notices of proposal to suspend the liquor licence of Touché Resto-Lounge for overcrowding and unauthorized alcohol tasting.
The parties submitted an Agreed Statement of Facts and a Joint Submission on Penalty.
The panel accepted the joint submission, finding that the licensee contravened the Liquor Licence Act and regulations.
The panel ordered a 25-day suspension of the liquor licence and added a condition requiring licensed security personnel on specific nights.
Motion to adjourn denied; panel found capable of conducting hearing in French with interpreter.
The licensee brought a motion to adjourn the hearing, arguing that the panel was not fully bilingual and therefore could not properly conduct the hearing in French as requested under the French Language Services Act.
The licensee contended that both panel members must be fluent in French to understand the nuances of the arguments.
The Registrar opposed the motion, arguing that the panel met the requirements of the Act and the government's guidelines for French language services, as one member was fluent in French and an interpreter was provided.
The panel dismissed the motion, finding that it was capable of fully understanding the proceedings and conducting the hearing in accordance with its obligations under the French Language Services Act.
Polygraph evidence is inadmissible in criminal trials as it offends the rule against oath-helping.
The respondents were charged with conspiracy to commit robbery.
At trial, they sought to introduce the results of a polygraph examination to support their credibility and deny participation in the conspiracy.
The trial judge refused to admit the evidence, and they were convicted.
The Court of Appeal allowed their appeal and ordered the trial reopened to consider the polygraph evidence.
The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the Crown's appeal, holding that polygraph evidence is inadmissible in criminal proceedings because it offends the rules against oath-helping, past consistent statements, and character evidence, and because assessing credibility is the exclusive province of the trier of fact.
