Joyce Taylor

The appellant applied for an additional licensed outdoor roof top patio area for 60 persons at its restaurant.

The Registrar issued a Notice of Proposal to review the application after receiving objections from local residents and community associations concerned about noise, density of licensed establishments, and potential disturbances.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the objectors' concerns were largely speculative and related to broader municipal issues rather than the specific application.

The Tribunal concluded that the objectors failed to establish that issuing the licence was against the public interest and directed the Registrar to issue the licence subject to municipal conditions and additional restrictions on music and hours of operation.

The Appellant appealed an Order of Monetary Penalty imposing $3,000 for three alleged contraventions of the Liquor Licence Act for permitting drunkenness and disorderly conduct.

As a preliminary matter, the Tribunal ordered the Registrar to disclose police notes and internal communications, applying Stinchcombe principles to administrative proceedings involving livelihood.

On the merits, the Tribunal found the evidence insufficient to prove the Appellant permitted an intoxicated patron to cause damage, permitted a removed patron to re-enter, or forced inspectors to leave for their safety.

The Tribunal set aside the alleged contraventions and the monetary penalties.

The appellant applied for a liquor sales licence, which the Registrar proposed to review due to public objections.

At the hearing, the City of Toronto withdrew its objection, and the remaining objector failed to attend.

The Registrar took no position.

The Tribunal approved the application subject to standard municipal clearance letters and requirements.

The appellant applied for a new liquor sales licence for TD Place, a sports stadium.

The Registrar issued a Notice of Proposal to review the application after receiving an objection from a local resident concerned about public disturbances.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found no causal connection between alcohol served at the premises and past rowdiness, and was satisfied with the appellant's comprehensive security and staff training plans.

The Tribunal concluded the objector failed to prove the licence was contrary to the public interest and directed the Registrar to issue the licence.

The Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming proposed to suspend the applicant's liquor licence for 14 days following an incident where police found severely intoxicated patrons and an alleged assault victim on the premises.

The applicant appealed, claiming the patrons arrived intoxicated and later attempted to extort the establishment.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal rejected the extortion claim as a complete fabrication, accepted the police evidence, and found that the applicant violated the Liquor Licence Act by permitting intoxicated persons on the premises and supplying them with liquor.

The Tribunal ordered written submissions on the appropriate sanction.

The applicant appealed a Notice of Proposal by the Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming refusing to remove two conditions from its liquor licence that prohibited music on the patio and propped doors.

The Tribunal found that a change in circumstances, including area revitalization and technological changes, justified removing the conditions.

Noting the applicant's responsible business history and the absence of the objectors at the hearing, the Tribunal directed the Registrar to remove the conditions and, on consent, added a new condition prohibiting amplified or live music on the patio after midnight.

The Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming issued an Order of Monetary Penalty against the applicant licensee for allegedly permitting drunkenness on its premises, contrary to section 45(1) of Ontario Regulation 719/90.

A patron was found passed out in a booth and taken to the hospital.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal set aside the monetary penalty, finding that the evidence did not establish on a balance of probabilities that the patron was drunk, nor did it establish that the establishment's staff knew or ought to have known she was intoxicated before she collapsed.

The applicant licensee appealed an Order of Monetary Penalty issued by the Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming for exceeding the capacity of its licensed premises.

AGCO inspectors counted 127 and 131 patrons inside the establishment, which had a licensed interior capacity of 100.

The licensee argued its own security staff counted fewer than 90 patrons, but the Tribunal found this evidence lacked credibility.

The Tribunal concluded the Registrar proved the over-capacity allegation on a balance of probabilities and confirmed the monetary penalty.

The Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming proposed to revoke the applicant's liquor licence following a serious stabbing incident on the premises.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant breached licence conditions regarding security cameras and a compliance plan, and failed to maintain control over the premises.

However, the Tribunal found no evidence that the applicant permitted the violent conduct, as he attempted to intervene.

The Tribunal concluded there were no reasonable grounds to believe the applicant would not carry on business with integrity and honesty, and requested submissions on the appropriate sanction for the established breaches.

The Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming issued a Notice of Proposed Order to revoke the applicant's registration as a lottery retailer.

The applicant appealed to the Licence Appeal Tribunal.

The Registrar alleged that the applicant breached its terms of registration by allowing the sole director's husband, who was explicitly prohibited from involvement, to manage the lottery account and sell lottery products.

The Tribunal found that the applicant breached the terms of registration and rejected the director's claim that she misunderstood the terms.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to carry out the proposal and revoke the applicant's registration.

The applicant appealed a Notice of Proposal by the Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming to review its liquor licence application due to objections.

At the hearing, the parties, including the City of Toronto, reached a settlement.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal directed the Registrar to issue the liquor licence subject to agreed-upon conditions, including restrictions on patio hours, noise control, and food service requirements.

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 Registrar of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario issued a Notice of Proposal to suspend the respondent's liquor licence.

The parties submitted an Agreed Statement of Facts admitting that the licensee breached conditions by keeping the establishment's doors locked while patrons were inside on multiple occasions.

The tribunal accepted the joint submission and ordered a 26-day suspension of the liquor licence.

The Registrar of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario issued a Notice of Proposal to suspend the liquor licence of The Drink for 14 days, alleging violations of the Liquor Licence Act and its regulations.

The allegations stemmed from incidents where underage patrons gained entry using false identification, consumed alcohol, and were involved in a violent altercation where a glass was thrown.

The Board found that the Licensee breached s. 30(4) of the Act by permitting minors to consume liquor, and s. 41(1) of the Regulation by failing to inspect identification before serving them.

However, the Board declined to find a violation of s. 45(1) regarding permitting violent conduct, as the altercation happened suddenly and staff responded appropriately by ejecting the patrons.

The Registrar issued a Notice of Proposal to suspend the licensee's liquor licence for permitting drunkenness in the establishment, contrary to section 45(1) of O. Reg. 719/90.

The parties submitted an Agreed Statement of Facts and a Joint Submission on Disposition.

The Board accepted the joint submission and ordered a 10-day suspension of the liquor licence.

The Registrar of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario requested an order for disclosure of witness statements from the Licensee, 2088675 Ontario Inc., ahead of a hearing regarding a liquor licence suspension.

The Board ordered the Licensee to provide a detailed summary of the remaining witness's proposed evidence and ordered both parties to complete any further disclosure by January 18, 2010.

At a pre-hearing conference regarding a proposal to suspend a liquor licence, the Registrar sought a standard disclosure order.

The Licensee opposed the request and brought a motion challenging the Board's authority to order disclosure, arguing it violated the right to remain silent under section 7 of the Charter and breached principles of natural justice.

The Board dismissed the Licensee's motion, finding that the proceedings are civil regulatory matters, not quasi-criminal, and therefore section 7 of the Charter does not apply.

The Board also held that requiring the exchange of 'will say' statements promotes fairness, efficiency, and settlement, and does not cause undue prejudice or breach natural justice.

The Registrar of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario issued a Notice of Proposal to suspend the licensee's liquor licence for permitting a drunken patron in the establishment.

The parties submitted an Agreed Statement of Facts and a Joint Submission on Disposition, admitting the breach of section 45(1) of Ontario Regulation 719/90.

The Board accepted the joint submission and ordered a 7-day suspension of the liquor licence, noting a prior 5-day suspension for the same offence.