CITATION: Hitti v. Ontario (Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario), 2011 ONSC 7579
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 512/11
DATE: 20111219
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
JENNINGS, SWINTON AND HARVISON YOUNG JJ.
BETWEEN:
RONALD HITTI Applicant
– and –
REGISTRAR, ALCOHOL AND GAMING COMMISSION OF ONTARIO and DEPUTY REGISTRAR, ALCOHOL AND GAMING COMMISSION OF ONTARIO Respondents
D. Russ Makepeace, for the Applicant
Tamara Brooks and Phillip Morris, for the Respondents
HEARD at Toronto: December 19, 2011
JENNINGS J. (orally)
[1] This motion is brought before the panel pursuant to s.21(5) of the Courts of Justice Act.
[2] The applicant, Mr. Hitti asks that the decision of Pardu J., sitting as a single judge of this Court, pronounced November 18, 2011, in which she declined to grant an injunction preventing enforcement of conditions on a licence issued by the Registrar (“AGCO”) to one Nasir be set aside. The applicant also seeks an order permitting the admission of fresh evidence.
[3] Mr. Hitti persuaded Mr. Nasir to take over a business that Mr. Hitti owned and operated at 128 Peter Street. Mr. Nasir applied for a liquor licence. AGCO granted the licence on the condition that because of his past unfavourable record with AGCO, Hitti not be allowed to participate in the business or to be on the business premises. At that time, Mr. Nasir was represented by Hitti’s present counsel and Mr. Nasir consented in writing to the condition being imposed.
[4] Subsequently, at Mr. Hitti’s request, AGCO deleted his name from the face of the licence as being the person subject to the condition, although the condition remained in effect.
[5] The material filed on this motion relating to the admission of fresh evidence does not deal with the Palmer test. What we understand to be the evidence sought to be admitted, being the Peters Report and the Minutes of the Board Meeting of June 25, 2008, could not in our opinion have affected the outcome of the motion for interlocutory injunctive relief.
[6] The part of the motion pertaining to the admission of fresh evidence is dismissed.
[7] With respect to the review of the decision, the standard of review is that in Housen v. Nikolaisen, 2002 SCC 33, [2002] 2 S.C.R. 235, that is, correctness on matters of law and overriding error on findings of fact.
[8] Pardu J. correctly applied the test for granting interlocutory injunctive relief established by the SCC in RJR-MacDonald Inc. v. Canada. She made no error in determining that the evidence:
(i) failed to establish irreparable harm to Hitti; and
(ii) established that the balance of convenience favours maintenance of the status quo until the hearing.
[9] This motion accordingly is dismissed.
COSTS
[10] We accept the submissions of counsel for the respondent that the motion was unnecessary insofar as fresh evidence is concerned and the language in the applicant’s correspondence is so intemperate as to warrant costs on a substantial indemnity basis. As the respondent seeks only $3,000.00 for costs, our award is limited to that amount, payable forthwith and in any event within 30 days.
JENNINGS J.
SWINTON J.
HARVISON YOUNG J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: December 19, 2011
Date of Release: December 23, 2011
CITATION: Hitti v. Ontario (Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario), 2011 ONSC 7579
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 512/11
DATE: 20111219
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
JENNINGS, SWINTON AND HARVISON YOUNG JJ.
BETWEEN:
RONALD HITTI Applicant
– and –
REGISTRAR, ALCOHOL AND GAMING COMMISSION OF ONTARIO and DEPUTY REGISTRAR, ALCOHOL AND GAMING COMMISSION OF ONTARIO Respondents
ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
JENNINGS J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: December 19, 2011
Date of Release: December 23, 2011