Licence Appeal Tribunal
FILE: 7149/LLA
CASE NAME: 7149 v. REGISTRAR OF ALCOHOL AND GAMING
Appeal from the Notice of Proposal of the Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming under the Liquor Licence Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. L. 19 - to Review an Application for a Licence for Additional Licensed Area
2219023 Ontario Inc. o/a No One Writes To The Colonel Applicant
-and-
Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming Respondent
DECISION AND ORDER
ADJUDICATOR: KENNETH W. KOPROWSKI, Vice-Chair
APPEARANCES:
For the Applicant: PRADEEP CHAND, Counsel
For the Respondent: KATE VARVA, Paralegal
Heard in Toronto: March 19, 2012
DECISION AND ORDER
BACKGROUND
The Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming (the “Registrar”) under the Liquor Licence Act, (the “Act”) issued a Notice of Proposal, number 18973 dated November 18, 2011, to review an application for additional licensed area by 2219023 Ontario Inc., operating as No One Writes To The Colonel (the “Applicant”), on the basis that the Registrar has received one or more written objections to the application.
The Notice of Proposal was filed as Exhibit #1.
The Notice of Appeal was filed as Exhibit #2.
FACTS
The Applicant operates No One Writes To The Colonel under licence number 814538.
The Applicant applied to the Registrar to licence an additional outdoor area for 30 persons.
Pursuant to Revised Regulation 719/90, Section 6, notice of the application was placed in the local publications, Toronto L’Express and the Toronto Star. The Registrar provided to the Applicant a written notice concerning the application to be posted on the premises.
By the final date for receiving written objections to the application, the Registrar received a written objection from a resident of the municipality.
The Deputy Registrar considered the application and the written objection from K.G. and directed that a proposal to review the application for the additional licensed area be issued in order to determine whether the Applicant is disentitled to a licence because the issuance of the licence is not in the public interest having regard to the needs and wishes of the residents of the municipality in which the premises are located.
The letter of objection of the resident, K.G., was filed as Exhibit #4.
The Tribunal scheduled a pre-hearing that took place at 9:30 a.m. on February 13, 2012. The Objector, the Applicant and the Respondent attended.
The Tribunal scheduled a further pre-hearing to take place at 9:30 a.m. on March 13, 2012. The Applicant and the Respondent attended. The Objector did not attend.
The Tribunal then sent out an Order to the parties and to the Objector confirming that the hearing in this matter was scheduled to take place on Monday, March 19, 2012, at 9:30 a.m. at the offices of the Tribunal, 20 Dundas Street West, 5th floor, Toronto, Ontario. The notice was sent out by courier to the Objector on March 14, 2012, as confirmed in the pick-up record of the courier, filed as Exhibit #3.
On the hearing date, the Applicant and the representative of the Registrar attended. The Objector did not attend at 9:30 a.m., the scheduled start time of the hearing. The Tribunal delayed the start of the hearing until 10:00 a.m. to give the Objector more time to attend. The objector did not attend by 10:00 a.m. The Applicant and the representative of the Registrar confirmed that they had received the written notice of the hearing. There was no evidence before this Tribunal to indicate that the written notice was not delivered by courier to the Objector. The Tribunal is satisfied that the Objector received notice of this hearing.
The Registrar took no position at the hearing.
The onus is on the objector to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that the issuance of the licence is against the public interest, having regard to the needs and wishes of the residents of the municipality in which the premises are located. In the absence of any such evidence, the Tribunal finds that there is no evidence that permits it to conclude that granting the licence to the Applicant is against the public interest.
In the absence of evidence from the Objector, the Tribunal considered that it was not necessary to have the Applicant testify as there was no case to which the Applicant needed to respond.
ORDER
For the reasons stated above and pursuant to the authority vested in it by section 23(10) of the Liquor Licence Act, the Tribunal directs the Registrar to issue the licence for the additional licensed area..
LICENCE APPEAL TRIBUNAL
Kenneth W. Koprowski Vice-Chair
RELEASED: April 2, 2012