Ban on Tea Inc. v. Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming, 2012 CanLII 57368

Licence Tribunal

Appeal d'appel en

Tribunal matière de permis

DATE:

2012-09-21

FILE:

7573/LLA

CASE NAME:

7573 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

Ban on Tea Inc.

Applicant

-and-

Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming

Respondent

DECISION AND ORDER

ADJUDICATOR:

Patricia McQuaid, Vice-Chair

APPEARANCES:

For the Applicant:

Rupert Sexton, Agent

For the Respondent:

Kate Varva, Paralegal

Heard in Toronto:

September 20, 2012

DECISION AND ORDER

The Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming (the “Registrar”) under the Liquor Licence Act, (the “Act”) issued a Notice of Proposal, number 19395 dated July 19, 2012 to review an application for licence for additional outdoor area by Ban On Tea Inc. o/a The Local on the basis that the Registrar has received one or more written objections to the application. The Applicant appealed that Notice of Proposal to the Tribunal and a pre-hearing was then held on September 12, 2102.

The various objectors to the Application received notice of the pre-hearing, but none appeared at that time. However, Mr. Sexton, representing Ban on Tea, advised that he had been in negotiations with the local residents’ association and believed a settlement of all issues had been reached. With respect to the individual objectors, Mr Sexton further advised that he understood that they had moved from the neighbouring building and he produced a letter from the landlord confirming that two of the objectors were no longer renting in the building. In the circumstances, given that letters of withdrawal of objection had not been received by either the AGCO or the Tribunal, a hearing was scheduled, with notice to be given to the various objectors at their last known addresses.

The hearing convened on September 20, 2012. Again, no objectors were in attendance though given notice of the hearing. Ms Varva confirmed that the Registrar was not taking a position regarding this application. She filed, as Exhibit 1 to these proceedings, the objection letters received by the AGCO, in response to which the Notice of Proposal had been issued.

Mr Sexton advised that he had no contact with any of the individual objectors. With respect to the Roncesvalles-Macdonell Residents’ Association (“RMRA”), Mr Sexton advised that an agreement had been reached with it, whereby RMRA would not object to the application should the Applicant consent to four proposed conditions on its licence. The Applicant has agreed to those conditions. Further to this letter from the RMRA, Mr Sexton filed two letters from the landlord of 394 Roncesvalles Avenue confirming that each of the individual objectors were no longer living at that address. These three letters were submitted as Exhibit 2 to this proceeding.

The Tribunal has reviewed the Exhibits and in particular noted that the individual objections arose from the fact each resided at 394 Roncesvalles and the resulting impact upon them from the Applicant’s operations.