Joyce A. Taylor

The appellant, a standardbred trainer, appealed rulings regarding a positive test for Salmeterol in a horse he trained.

The parties presented an Agreed Statement of Facts and a Joint Recommendation as to Penalty.

The Ontario Racing Commission accepted the joint submission, imposing a four-month suspension, a $2,200 fine, and a two-year probation period with conditions including unannounced searches and out-of-competition testing.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Board of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario, which suspended its liquor licence for 14 days after finding it allowed overcrowding and permitted a patron to smoke marijuana on the licensed patio.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that an appeal lies only on a question of law, and the appellant's grounds were essentially challenges to the Board's findings of fact and credibility determinations.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Liquor License Board finding violations of the Liquor License Act for permitting drunkenness and allowing alcohol to be removed from the premises, as well as the resulting 10-day license suspension and added conditions.

The appellant argued denial of natural justice due to delayed disclosure, improper limits on cross-examination, and the Board's treatment of an inspector's evidence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no denial of natural justice as the appellant had immediate notice of the infractions, and holding that the Board properly assessed the inspector's observational evidence.

The global sanction was also upheld.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Board of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario finding that it had permitted drunkenness on its premises contrary to s. 45(1) of Regulation 719 under the Liquor Licence Act.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the Board erred in law by concluding the appellant permitted drunkenness without any evidence of how long the patron had been in an intoxicated state, which was necessary to determine if the appellant failed to remove the patron within a reasonable period of time.

The Registrar issued a Notice of Proposal to refuse an application for a liquor sales licence by the applicants for their restaurant.

The matter was resolved when the Registrar withdrew the objections upon the applicants agreeing to specific conditions, including restricting one applicant's role to the kitchen and prohibiting his involvement in liquor sales or management.

The Board approved the application subject to the agreed conditions.

The Registrar of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario appealed a decision of the Divisional Court.

Prior to the hearing, the respondent voluntarily surrendered its licence.

Consequently, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal as moot.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario issued a costs endorsement following an appeal.

Having regard to the submissions of counsel and an outstanding costs order, the court awarded costs to the respondent in the amount of $12,000, inclusive of disbursements and GST.

The Registrar issued a Notice of Proposal to suspend the licensee's liquor licence after inspectors and police found minors consuming liquor on the premises on two occasions.

The parties submitted an Agreed Statement of Facts and a Joint Submission on Disposition, admitting to a breach of s. 30(4) of the Liquor Licence Act.

The Board accepted the joint submission and ordered the licence suspended for one professional soccer event.

The Registrar appealed a Divisional Court decision that found the Board erred in law regarding a liquor licensee permitting drunkenness on its premises.

The Court of Appeal agreed that the Board misinterpreted the word 'permits' in section 45(1) of the regulation, holding that it requires proof the licensee knew or ought to have known of the drunkenness.

Although the Court of Appeal disagreed with the Divisional Court's assessment that the evidence could not support a finding against the licensee, it declined to order a new hearing.

The appeal was dismissed.

The Registrar of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario issued Notices of Proposal to suspend the respondent's liquor licence due to noise disturbances and the licensee being intoxicated on the premises.

Following an Agreed Statement of Facts and a Joint Submission on Disposition, the Board found the licensee breached sections 45(1) and 46 of O. Reg. 719/90.

The Board ordered a 12-day suspension of the liquor licence and added conditions prohibiting temporary extensions and requiring industrial waste containers for garbage.

The appellant licensee appealed a decision of the Board of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario finding it breached s. 45(1) of O. Reg 719/90 by permitting drunkenness on its premises.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that the Board committed an error of law by failing to make a specific finding that the licensee 'permitted' the intoxicated patron to be on the premises, which is an essential element of the infraction.

The finding of a violation was set aside.

The appellant appealed the Alcohol and Gaming Commission's decision to refuse the renewal of its registration.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error of law in the Commission's conclusion that the appellant's representative attempted to deceive the Commission.

The Court also held that the financial information sought by the Commission was relevant, and the refusal to provide it contravened the Gaming Control Act, requiring the refusal of the renewal.

Costs of $10,460 were awarded to the respondent.

The Registrar of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario issued a Notice of Proposal to suspend the liquor licence of the Cop Shop Café.

The parties submitted an Agreed Statement of Facts admitting that a drunken patron was permitted in the licensed establishment, in breach of s. 45(1) of O. Reg. 719/90 under the Liquor Licence Act.

The Board accepted the joint submission on disposition and ordered a 7-day suspension of the liquor licence.

The appellant appealed a Board decision suspending its liquor licence for 14 days due to multiple infractions, including serving alcohol after hours, permitting drunkenness, and failing to clear signs of service.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the Board's refusal to grant an adjournment, its factual conclusions, or its penalty.

The Court also held that the Board was not functus officio when it issued an amending order to address an issue it had inadvertently omitted, as it was completing its statutory task.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Board suspending its liquor licence for 14 days due to multiple infractions, including serving alcohol after hours, permitting drunkenness, and failing to clear signs of service.

The appellant argued the Board erred by refusing an adjournment, making unreasonable factual findings, and issuing an amending order when it was functus officio.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no denial of natural justice in the adjournment refusal, sufficient evidence to support the factual findings, and that the Board was not functus officio when completing its statutory task by addressing an issue it had inadvertently missed.

The penalty was upheld as reasonable.

The appellant obtained a conditional stay of a decision pending appeal.

The respondents brought a motion to revoke the stay, alleging that intoxicated patrons were found on the appellant's premises.

Due to the timing of the motion and the unavailability of the appellant's counsel, the court granted a short adjournment of the motion to revoke the stay.

The Registrar appealed a decision of the Board of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission granting the respondent a liquor delivery service licence.

The respondent had failed to disclose recent criminal convictions on his application.

The Board found that the respondent made a false statement but granted the licence anyway, citing personal hardships and relying on evidence it had otherwise deemed not credible.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that under s. 6(2)(e) and s. 10(2) of the Liquor Licence Act, the Board has no discretion to grant a licence once it finds an applicant made a false statement.

The Court also found the Board erred by considering irrelevant factors and rejected evidence.

The Registrar was ordered to carry out the proposal to refuse the licence.