Joyce Taylor

The applicant sought judicial review of the Registrar's decision to refuse to process its application for a new liquor licence.

The Registrar had refused to process the application, arguing the applicant was substantially related to the existing licensee and was attempting to evade public interest protections, and insisted the applicant file a transfer application instead.

The Divisional Court allowed the application, finding that under the Liquor Licence Act, the Registrar has no statutory authority to refuse an application outright.

Instead, the Registrar must issue a proposal to refuse the application, which triggers the applicant's right to a hearing.

The matter was remitted to the Registrar to process in accordance with the Act.

The appellant brought a motion to adjourn its appeal of a decision by the Board of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario.

The appellant sought the adjournment pending the outcome of an unrelated judicial review application by another licensee challenging the Board's institutional impartiality.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that an adjournment could prejudice the respondent and delay the resolution of four-year-old allegations.

Crucially, the court noted that the appellant had never raised the issue of bias in its own case and declined to amend its Notice of Appeal to do so.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Board of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario convicting it of infractions under the Liquor Licence Act, including permitting drunkenness, selling liquor to an intoxicated person, and overcrowding a patio.

The appellant argued there was a breach of natural justice due to delayed notice, that the Board misapprehended evidence, and that the defence of necessity applied to the overcrowding.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no unreasonable delay in notice, no palpable and overriding error in the Board's assessment of the evidence, and that the defence of necessity could not be raised for the first time on appeal.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Board of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario suspending its liquor licence for six days for permitting drunkenness and serving an intoxicated patron.

The appellant argued it was denied procedural fairness when the Board restricted cross-examination regarding an adjacent establishment, that the Board failed to articulate a legal test for intoxication, and that the penalty was excessive.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no denial of procedural fairness, no error of law in applying the plain meaning of intoxication, and that the penalty was reasonable.

The corporate applicant sought a stay of a 14-day liquor licence suspension imposed by the Alcohol and Gaming Commission pending its appeal.

The respondent conceded irreparable harm and balance of convenience but argued the appeal did not raise a serious issue as it only disputed findings of fact.

The court found the appeal was not frivolous or vexatious, noting the applicant intended to introduce fresh evidence and argue the Board failed to consider relevant evidence.

The stay was granted.

The appellant Registrar appealed a Board decision granting a liquor licence to the respondent nightclub.

The appellant argued the Board failed to properly consider the past conduct of the respondent's principal and the public interest concerns of local residents.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board applied the correct legal tests, properly weighed the evidence, and provided adequate reasons for its conclusions.