Jordan Stewart

The appellant applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal to remove three conditions from its liquor licence relating to a rooftop patio.

The conditions were originally imposed following a public interest hearing.

The appellant argued that circumstances had changed because it abandoned all plans to install a rooftop patio and the premises were constructed without roof access.

The Registrar agreed with the removal.

The Tribunal found that the appellant met its burden to prove a change in circumstances and ordered the removal of the conditions.

The applicant applied under s. 11(4) of the Liquor Licence and Control Act, 2019 to remove four conditions from its liquor licence.

The conditions were originally imposed over sixteen years ago on a previous licensee.

Following public notice, no concerns were raised regarding the removal of three of the conditions.

The respondent consented to the removal of those three conditions, and the applicant withdrew its request to remove the fourth condition.

The Tribunal found that the change in circumstances justified the removal of the three conditions.

The respondent Registrar sought reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that ordered a 30-day suspension and added terms and conditions to the appellant's liquor licence, rather than revoking it.

The Registrar argued the Tribunal erred in law by not revoking the licence under s. 3(4) of the Liquor Licence and Control Act, 2019, and by considering the public interest.

The Tribunal dismissed the reconsideration request, finding no error of law or fact, as the Act provides remedial flexibility to impose suspensions and conditions in the public interest.

The appellant applied to remove a condition from its liquor licence that restricted seating capacity.

The Registrar consented to the removal.

The Tribunal found that there had been a change in circumstances since the condition was imposed in 1992, noting a change in operator, no reported issues, and no public objections.

The application was granted and the condition was removed on consent.

The applicant applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal to remove all conditions on its liquor sales licence.

The respondent Registrar agreed that the conditions were no longer enforceable and consented to their removal.

Finding a change in circumstances justifying the removal, the Tribunal issued a consent order removing all conditions from the licence pursuant to s. 11(4) of the Liquor Licence and Control Act, 2019.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Proposal to Review an Application for a Liquor Licence.

Following a case conference, the objectors withdrew their objections on the condition that four agreed-upon conditions be attached to the licence.

The Tribunal issued a consent order directing the Registrar to approve the application subject to those conditions, which included restrictions on amplified music, operating hours, and community consideration measures.

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

The Registrar alleged the appellant breached terms and conditions prohibiting a specific individual from attending the premises, failed to retrieve the liquor licence upon request, and failed to facilitate an inspection by not providing requested documents.

The Tribunal found the allegations proven, establishing reasonable grounds for belief that the appellant would not carry on business in accordance with the law and with integrity and honesty.

However, considering the appellant's health issues as a mitigating factor, the Tribunal directed the Registrar not to carry out the revocation, ordering instead a 30-day suspension with terms and conditions.

The appellant applied to extend its existing liquor sales licence to include an outdoor patio.

Several local residents objected, raising concerns about alcohol policy, proximity to a school, intoxicated individuals, prior behaviour of the appellant, and noise.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the objectors failed to establish that extending the licence was contrary to the public interest.

The Tribunal ordered the Registrar to issue the licence without the conditions requested by the objectors, finding them unenforceable or inconsistent with other local establishments.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Proposal to Review an Application for a Liquor Licence for an outdoor boulevard patio.

At the outset of the hearing, the parties resolved the issues on consent.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to issue a consume on premises licence for the patio, subject to conditions including a capacity of 60 persons, operating as a restaurant rather than a nightclub, and closing by 11:00 p.m.

The appellant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that confirmed a $1,500 monetary penalty for exceeding the licensed capacity of a patio.

The appellant argued that the Tribunal breached procedural fairness by denying an adjournment, made errors of fact and law, and that new evidence showed the municipality acted in bad faith.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding no breach of procedural fairness in denying the last-minute adjournment, no errors of law or fact, and that the new evidence was both obtainable prior to the hearing and irrelevant to the capacity contravention.

The appellant appealed an Order of Monetary Penalty of $1,500 issued by the Registrar for allowing 39 persons on a patio licensed for 10 people, contrary to the Liquor Licence Act.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal denied the appellant's preliminary request for an adjournment, noting multiple prior adjournments and the presence of the respondent's witnesses.

On the merits, the Tribunal accepted the inspector's evidence that the patio was over capacity and confirmed the monetary penalty, finding the appellant failed to obtain municipal or regulatory approval for a temporary patio extension.

The appellant applied for a cannabis retail manager licence.

The Registrar issued a Notice of Proposal to refuse the application.

The appellant failed to request a hearing within the required 15-day period and subsequently filed a motion to extend the time to appeal, over 125 days late.

The Tribunal applied the four-factor test from Manuel and found that the appellant lacked a bona fide intention to appeal within the time limit, the delay was significant without reasonable explanation, and the appeal had little likelihood of success.

The motion for an extension of time was dismissed.

The applicant applied to remove three conditions from its liquor licence regarding patio capacity, patio closing hours, and live entertainment.

The Registrar consented to the removal, acknowledging a change in circumstances since the licence was granted 29 years ago.

The Tribunal found a change in circumstances and ordered the removal of the conditions, with the applicant consenting to a new condition prohibiting live entertainment or music on the patio.

The appellant applied for a liquor licence for an outdoor area at its lodge.

Several residents objected, raising concerns about noise, traffic, and unruly behaviour, prompting the Registrar to issue a Notice of Proposal to review the application.

The added parties requested conditions limiting the hours of alcohol service and amplified music.

The Tribunal found that the issuance of the licence was in the public interest and that the objectors failed to establish that conditions were necessary, noting the appellant's positive track record, support from proximate residents, and existing regulatory obligations regarding noise.

The appellant applied for a liquor licence for its establishment.

A local resident and a city councillor objected, prompting the Registrar to issue a Notice of Proposal to review the application.

The appellant appealed to the Tribunal.

Neither objector attended the hearing, and the resident emailed stating he no longer wished to participate.

As the appellant met the criteria for a licence and the objectors abandoned their claims, the Tribunal ordered the Registrar to issue the liquor licence.

The appellant applied for a liquor licence for an outdoor patio attached to its establishment.

Several neighbourhood residents objected due to concerns about noise and amplified music.

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

The Tribunal found that granting the patio liquor licence was in the public interest, noting the appellant's history of operating similar establishments without complaints and community support.

However, to address the residents' legitimate noise concerns, the Tribunal directed the Registrar to issue the licence subject to conditions restricting amplified sound after 8 pm on weekdays and 11 pm on weekends, and requiring courtesy signs and a contact number for complaints.

The applicant applied to remove a condition on its liquor licence requiring the sale and service of alcohol to cease at 10 p.m.

The condition was imposed 15 years prior based on an agreement with a resident objector.

The parties agreed that the neighbourhood and the applicant's business model had changed, and the applicant had a clean regulatory record.

The Tribunal found a change in circumstances under s. 14(2) of the Liquor Licence Act and ordered the condition removed on consent.

The applicant, a new owner of a licensed establishment, applied to remove a condition on its liquor licence that prohibited minors after 9:30 p.m.

The condition had been imposed on the previous owner due to a disciplinary matter.

The Tribunal found that a change in circumstances had occurred, as the applicant was not connected to the previous owner and operated a family dining establishment rather than a nightclub.

With the consent of the Registrar, the Tribunal ordered the condition removed.

The applicant, a new owner of a licensed establishment, applied under s. 14(2) of the Liquor Licence Act to remove a condition on its liquor licence that prohibited minors after 9:30 p.m.

The condition had been imposed on the previous owner as part of a disciplinary matter.

The applicant argued that there was a change in circumstances because it was not connected to the previous owner and operated a family dining establishment rather than a nightclub.

The respondent consented to the removal of the condition.

The Tribunal found a change in circumstances and ordered the condition removed.

The applicant, a licensee on Wolfe Island, applied under s. 14(2) of the Liquor Licence Act to remove four conditions from its liquor licence regarding patio hours and live music.

The applicant provided evidence of a change in circumstances, including support from the original objectors, a petition from neighbours, and a letter of no objection from the municipality.

The respondent agreed that circumstances had changed and proposed replacing the four conditions with two new conditions extending the patio hours and season.

The Tribunal found a change in circumstances and ordered the removal of the old conditions and the addition of the new agreed conditions.