Licence Tribunal
Appeal d'appel en Tribunal matière de permis
FILE: 7047/LLA
CASE NAME: 7047 v. Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming
Appeal from the Notice of Proposal #18950 of the Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming under the Liquor Licence Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. L. 19 - to Suspend a Licence
1752010 Ontario Inc. O/A Murphy’s Inn Applicant
-and-
Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming Respondent
DECISION ON SANCTION
ADJUDICATOR: Geneviève Blais, Member
APPEARANCES:
For the Applicant: Thavanesan Saravanamuthu, Agent
For the Respondent: Tamara Brooks, Counsel
Heard in Ottawa: March 1, 2012
DECISION AND ORDER ON SANCTION
The Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming (the “Registrar”) under the Liquor Licence Act, (the “Act”) issued a Notice of Proposal (“NOP”), number 18950, dated October 25, 2011 to suspend for 14 days liquor licence number 21589 of 1752010 Ontario Inc. operating as Murphy’s Inn (the “Applicant”).
The appeal of the NOP was heard on March 1, 2012. In its Decision issued on March 21, 2012, the Tribunal found that the Applicant had breached subsections 30(4), 45(1) and Section 45.2 of Ontario Regulation 719/90 (the “O.Reg”) under the Liquor Licence Act (the “Act”) by permitting minors to consume liquor on the licensed premises, by permitting drunkenness in the licensed premises and by failing to maintain control over the premises. The Tribunal dismissed the allegation of permitting disorderly conduct and damage arising out of disorderly conduct under Section 45.1 of the O.Reg. The parties were directed to provide written submissions on an appropriate sanction.
The Tribunal has received and reviewed the submissions of the Registrar and Applicant.
In the submission on penalty, the Registrar focused on the issue of the manager’s conduct and his failure to fulfill his obligations under the Act and Regulations. He was not adequately prepared for the event and the level of security provided was insufficient and inappropriate. His measures of checking bags and removing bottles to prevent the consumption of alcohol by minors failed. The evidence was clear that several youth showed signs of intoxication and two required medical attention. The manager failed in his ability to control an event that could have escalated to a more dangerous situation. The Registrar noted that the manager’s inability to understand and appreciate the statutory obligations of a licensee and compliance with the Act and Regulations is of concern when considering the issue of public interest and safety
The Registrar noted that the Licensee has a positive history of compliance. However, the three contraventions are serious and the Licensee’s compliance history should not warrant much leniency in this case. Given the absence of any extenuating circumstances for the contraventions, the Registrar submitted that a suspension of fourteen (14) days is appropriate from the standpoint of specific and general deterrence.
The Applicant’s submitted that he took all the measures available to him to control the event by ensuring that no alcohol was sold or served. He submitted that his security measures were adequate and he fully discharged his obligations under the Act. He cannot be held responsible for minors who consumed alcohol prior to arriving to the licensed establishment. In his submission, the Applicant made no comment on an appropriate sanction.
In arriving at its decision, the Tribunal notes that a sanction must have both a general and specific deterrence effect. The legislation and regulations have specific rules and licensees are expected to ensure those rules are adhered to.
The three violations in this case are serious, particularly the contraventions involving persons under 19 years of age. Drunkenness and permitting minors to consume alcohol on the premises are serious breaches of the Act and its Regulations and any sanction should reflect that seriousness. The manager’s preventive and deterrent measures on the night in question were clearly inadequate. He demonstrated poor judgment in managing the event. He should have had properly trained security in place to control the admittance of youth and planned measures of response for potential problems. His failure to be responsibly prepared could be attributed more to his unsuspecting nature than to a willful mismanagement. The manager did not appear to understand what he did wrong on the evening in question.
In its determination of sanction against the Licensee, the Tribunal has considered the history of compliance of the Licensee. There have been no infractions at the licensed establishment for the five years that the Licensee has been in business. In the circumstances of this case and as a matter of general and specific deterrence, the Tribunal has determined that a suspension of the liquor licence for a period of twelve (12) days is appropriate.
ORDER
The Tribunal ORDERS that liquor licence number 21589 issued to 1752010 Ontario Inc. operating as Murphy’s Inn be suspended for a period of twelve (12) days.
This suspension must be served on consecutive days the establishment normally operates and must not start earlier than ten (10) days from the date of this decision and must be completed within ninety (90) days of the date of this decision (unless otherwise agreed between the parties). The Applicant shall submit proposed suspension dates to the Registrar within seven (7) days of the date of this decision, failing which the Registrar may set the suspension dates without further notice to the Applicant.
LICENCE APPEAL TRIBUNAL
Geneviève Blais, Member
Released: April 16, 2012