Licence Tribunal
Appeal d'appel en
Tribunal matière de permis
DATE:
2013-04-18
FILE:
7882/AGRPPA
CASE NAME:
7882 v. Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming
Appeal from an Order of Monetary Penalty of the Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming under the Alcohol and Gaming Regulation and Public Protection Act, 1996, R.S.O. 1996, c. C. 26
1843258 Ontario Inc. o/a Seneca Pub
Applicant
-and-
Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming
Respondent
REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDER
ADJUDICATOR:
Terrance A. Sweeney, Vice-Chair
APPEARANCES:
For the Applicant:
Self-represented
For the Respondent:
Craig Slater, Counsel
Heard in Toronto:
April 2, 2013
DECISION AND ORDER
BACKGROUND
This is a hearing before the Licence Appeal Tribunal (the “Tribunal”) arising out of an Order of Monetary Penalty issued by the Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming, under the Alcohol and Gaming Regulation and Public Protection Act, 1996 (the “Registrar” and the “Act” respectively.) The Order dated January 17, 2013 imposed a monetary penalty on 1843258 Ontario Inc. o/a Seneca Pub (the “Applicant”), with respect to contraventions of sections 25(1) and 29 of Regulation 719/90 of the Liquor Licence Act.
DECISION
The Tribunal considered the evidence, the submissions of Counsel and the admission of the Applicant. The Tribunal directs the Registrar confirms the Order to impose the monetary penalty for the reasons which follow.
EVIDENCE For the Respondent
Josee McFadden has been an inspector with the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario ("AGCO") for five years.
She and her AGCO partner entered the Seneca Pub at 2:49 a.m. on June 30, 2012. She saw a male and female in a booth. The male had a pint of beer in front of him.
She then approached the bar where two males had two pints of beer in front of them. Both pints were full, frothy and sweaty and cold to the touch..
The female staff member on duty had not removed all evidence of drinking from the bar.
She and her partner then went to the back of the bar with a male staff member and observed the surveillance video. The time on the video was wrong. It showed 2:41 a.m. when the time, in fact, was 2:58 a.m. Moreover, the video showed that she and her AGCO partner had arrived at 2:30 a.m., when they had arrived at 2:49 a.m.
The female staff member conceded that she could have served the patrons after 2:00 a.m. The staff member also said that she had until 3:00 a.m. to clear evidence of drinking.
The Applicant chose not to cross-examine Ms. McFadden.
Ryan McAfee
He has been a liquor inspector for a year. He was not present in the room when Ms, McFadden testified. Yet, he corroborated, in every detail, the evidence of Ms. McFadden.
The Applicant did not cross examine Mr. McAfee.
For the Applicant
Mr. Lu is the principal of the Applicant. He admitted the allegations against the Applicant but asked the Tribunal to reduce the penalty.
THE LAW
Regulation 719/90 of the Liquor Licence Act reads, in part, as follows:
(1) Except for December 31, liquor may be sold and served only between 11 a.m. on any day and 2 a.m. on the following day. O. Reg. 163/96, s. 5.
The licence holder shall ensure that evidence of liquor that has been served and consumed on the premises is removed within forty-five minutes after the end of the period during which liquor may be sold and served under the licence. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 719, s. 29.
ISSUES
Did the Applicant serve liquor after 2:00 a.m. on June 30, 2012?
Did the Applicant ensure that evidence of liquor served and consumed was removed from the pub before 2:45 a.m. on June 30, 2012?
APPLICATION OF LAW TO FACTS
The Applicant has admitted the allegations against it. Subsection 14.1(7) of the Act limits the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. It may only confirm the monetary penalty or set it aside. It has no jurisdiction to vary the monetary penalty.
ORDER
Pursuant to the authority vested in it under the provisions of the Act, the Tribunal confirms the monetary penalty imposed in the Registrar’s Order of January 17, 2013.
LICENCE APPEAL TRIBUNAL
Terrance Sweeney, Vice Chair
Released: April 18, 2013