The defendants, a restaurant corporation and its president, faced quasi-criminal charges under the Liquor Licence Act for permitting disorderly conduct and drunkenness.
Prior to trial, the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario held an administrative hearing and found the corporation had contravened the Act, suspending its licence.
The defendants brought a pre-trial motion to stay the quasi-criminal charges, arguing the court lacked jurisdiction based on res judicata and double jeopardy.
The court dismissed the motion, finding that regulatory proceedings to determine licence fitness are fundamentally different from quasi-criminal prosecutions, involve different burdens of proof, and do not trigger double jeopardy protections.
