Jonathan Andrews

The appellant applied for a liquor licence for its convenience store.

The Registrar issued a Notice of Proposal to Review the Application after receiving objections from local residents.

The sole objector who attended the hearing argued against the licence on public policy grounds, citing risks of drinking and driving and underage drinking.

The Tribunal found that the objector failed to establish that granting the licence was not in the public interest, noting the appellant's robust age verification policies and lack of prior infractions.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to issue the licence without conditions.

The applicant appealed a Notice of Proposal to Review an Application for a Liquor Licence for its convenience store in Brampton.

The City of Brampton opposed the licence, arguing it was not in the public interest having regard to the needs and wishes of the residents.

The Tribunal found that the City failed to provide direct evidence regarding the needs and wishes of the residents or the impact on the immediate community.

The Tribunal ordered the Registrar to issue the licence without conditions, noting that the applicant had sufficient policies and procedures in place to responsibly handle the sale of alcohol.

The appellant applied for a liquor licence for its premises.

Following objections from residents and the municipality, the Registrar issued a Notice of Proposal to review the application.

At the hearing, the municipality and the appellant agreed to specific conditions regarding operating hours, noise signage, and a contact number for complaints.

The Registrar withdrew its Notice of Proposal based on this agreement.

The Tribunal found that the objectors failed to prove that issuing the licence was not in the public interest and directed the Registrar to issue the licence subject to the agreed conditions.

The appellant applied for a liquor licence for its 7-Eleven convenience store.

The Registrar issued a Notice of Proposal to review the application after receiving objections from community members, primarily union members opposed to the private sale of alcohol in convenience stores.

The objectors argued that licensing the premises would increase community harms such as underage drinking and intoxicated driving.

The Tribunal found that the objectors' concerns were speculative, general in nature, and unsupported by objective evidence specific to the premises.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to issue the licence without conditions, concluding that the objectors failed to establish that issuing the licence was not in the public interest.