Licence Appeal Tribunal
File: 7566/LLA
Case Name: Pao Ming Chang and Chun Hua Ivy Chen 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 Refuse to Issue a Liquor Licence
Applicants: Pao Ming Chang and Chun Hua Ivy Chen operating as or intending to operate as Ming’s Place
Respondent: Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming
Decision and Order
Adjudicator: Laurie Sanford, Vice-Chair
Appearances:
For the Applicants: Mr. P.M. Chang on his own behalf and on behalf of Ms. C.H.I. Chen
For the Respondent: Mr. Phillip Morris, Counsel
Heard in Peterborough: December 18, 2012
Decision and Order
The Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming (the “Registrar”) under the Liquor Licence Act, (the “Act”) issued a Notice of Proposal, dated July 25, 2012 which proposed to refuse the application for a liquor licence by Mr. Chang and Ms. Chen, who operate a Japanese restaurant named “Ming’s Place”. Mr. Chang and Ms. Chen appealed this Notice of Proposal to the Licence Appeal Tribunal.
At the conclusion of the hearing, the Tribunal advised Mr. Chang that it would be directing the Registrar to carry out his proposal to refuse the liquor licence. These are the reasons for that decision.
Facts
Mr. Chang has a troubled history with repeated offenses and suspensions under the Highway Traffic Act. He has a conditional discharge for assaulting a police officer with an accompanying firearms prohibition which continues until 2013. In his application for a liquor licence, Mr. Chang did not disclose the conditional discharge, as he was required to do. Instead he said he had not been convicted of an offense and had not received a conditional discharge. On further investigation, the Registrar offered Mr. Chang the opportunity to explain the facts that led to the conditional discharge. Mr. Change offered an explanation but it did not accord with the evidence entered during the proceedings at guilty plea.
The Alcohol and Gaming Commission (“AGCO”) on behalf of the Registrar made attempts to investigate Mr. Chang’s background more fully but Mr. Chang did not provide the material requested and did not meet with the AGCO’s investigator to clarify the issues of concern to the Registrar.
For these reasons, the Registrar is proposing to refuse to issue the liquor licence to Mr. Chang and Ms. Chen.
Mr Chang explained that he forgot the conditional discharge at the time he completed his application form. This was a result, he said, of not spending enough time completing the form. He also acknowledged that he should have spent more time complying with the AGCO’s request for further information. However, his restaurant is now consuming all his available time. He is working 13 hours a day, 7 days a week and is overwhelmed with dealing with suppliers, customers and staff. Two of his chefs have recently resigned and his restaurant was recently closed by the public health authorities pending the investigation of an alleged incident of food poisoning. He concedes that he should have spent more time preparing for this hearing but explained that running his business is now consuming his life. He gave evidence but called no witnesses on his behalf and produced a petition from his customers as the only documentary evidence of his suitability to have a liquor licence.
Mr. Chang testified that he is a changed person from the one who misbehaved in the past. His association with Ms. Chen and their opening of the restaurant have changed his life, he testified. He testified that without a liquor licence, his business may not survive.
Decision
Mr. Chang is an intelligent and articulate man who appears to be sincere in his conviction that he has turned his life around. The Tribunal accepts his explanation that he had forgotten the conditional discharge when he completed the liquor licence application, in part because he completed it in a hurried way. What is of concern to the Tribunal is not Mr. Chang’s credibility or sincerity but whether, given the demands on his time, he is able to comply with the regulatory regime established under the Act.
The result of Mr. Chang’s rush to complete his application was that his application was not truthful. Despite having a year to comply, he has not provided the documentation which the AGCO requested, properly, as part of the AGCO’s investigation of his application. It seems that his business is so all consuming that he cannot find the time to comply with the requirements to obtain a licence under the Act.
Under the Act, a person who otherwise qualifies is entitled to a liquor licence unless there are reasonable grounds to believe that he lacks financial responsibility or will not conduct his business with honesty, integrity and in accordance with the law. The ability to operate in accordance with the law includes the ability to comply with the regulatory regime established under the Act. Mr. Chang’s inability to comply with the basic requirements for obtaining a licence gives ample grounds for concern that he will be unable to comply with the on-going requirements the Act imposes on licensees. The Tribunal concludes that Mr. Chang is unable to comply with the regulatory regime that is necessary to operate a licensed restaurant in this province.
If Mr. Chang is able to reorganise his business so that he or some responsible person has the time and resources to comply with the Act, then there is no impediment to his reapplying. He will need to clearly demonstrate that he has changed to the point where the Registrar can be confident that he meets the requirements for registration and that he can be relied upon to comply with the standards required by the Act on an on-going basis.
Order
Pursuant to the authority vested in it under the provisions of the Act, the Tribunal directs the Registrar to carry out his Proposal.
LICENCE APPEAL TRIBUNAL
Laurie Sanford
Vice-Chair
Released: January 8, 2013