Richard Kulis

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 vary a stay order regarding the revocation of its liquor licence, seeking permission to open its back patio during the summer.

The respondent Commission opposed the motion and brought a countermotion to lift the stay, alleging the appellant breached the conditions of the stay.

The court dismissed both motions, finding that the appellant's request to vary the conditions was not justified and that the Commission failed to prove the alleged breaches.

The court also ordered the parties to expedite the appeal.

The applicant sought judicial review of three orders made by a panel of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario that directed a hearing to proceed in camera and excluded counsel for interested persons.

The Divisional Court quashed the orders, emphasizing that section 9(1) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act and the common law strongly favour open hearings.

The Court found that the Board failed to consider less restrictive measures to address its concerns regarding the presence of counsel while witnesses were excluded.

The applicants sought judicial review of orders made by the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario directing that a hearing proceed in camera and restricting the attendance of counsel for interested persons.

The Divisional Court quashed the orders, emphasizing that the Statutory Powers Procedure Act and the common law strongly favour open hearings.

The Court found that the Board failed to consider less restrictive measures to address its concerns regarding the presence of counsel while witnesses were excluded.

The applicant brought an application to quash an order of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario that granted intervenor status to the Liquor Control Board of Ontario in two stay motions.

The stay motions were based on allegations of witness tampering by an LCBO employee.

The Divisional Court held that the Board's decision to grant intervenor status was incorrect, as the LCBO had no interest in the stay motions and its intervention would distort the adversarial process.

The order granting standing to the LCBO was quashed.

The applicant sought judicial review to quash an order of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario that granted intervenor status to the Liquor Control Board of Ontario in two stay motions.

The stay motions were based on allegations of witness tampering by an LCBO employee and the improper distribution of transcripts.

The Divisional Court held that the standard of review was correctness and found that the Board erred in granting intervenor status.

The Court concluded that the LCBO had no interest in the stay motions and its intervention would introduce a distortion into the adversarial process.

The order granting standing to the LCBO was quashed.