Licence Tribunal
Appeal d'appel en Tribunal matière de permis
FILE: 8216/AGRPPA
CASE NAME: 8216v. 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
1669518 Ontario Inc. o/a Sizzle Steak House and Lounge Applicant
-and-
Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming Respondent
REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDER
ADJUDICATOR: Patricia L. Cassidy, Vice-Chair
APPEARANCES:
For the Applicants: Michael S. Puskas, Counsel
For the Respondent: Joyce Taylor, Counsel
Heard in Hamilton: October 1 and November 25, 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 June 17, 2013 imposed a monetary penalty on the Applicant, with respect to contraventions of section 45(1) of Ontario Regulation719/90 under the Liquor Licence Act.
PRELIMINARY MATTERS
At the commencement of this hearing, on October 1, 2013, Counsel for the Registrar sought to have disclosure, which she advised she had just received from the Applicant, ruled inadmissible. It was determined that the material had been sent via email but that Ms. Taylor had not been made aware of it in a timely fashion. Ultimately, it was agreed by the parties, that more time would be required for the hearing of this appeal than what was scheduled in any event and, since the parties were present and the Registrar’s witnesses were present, the hearing would commence. Once those witnesses present had given their evidence, the hearing would be adjourned in order to permit the Registrar time to subpoena further witnesses which it might deem to be required once the disclosure received from counsel for the Applicant had been reviewed. The Applicant’s disclosure would not be ruled as inadmissible, in the circumstances, simply because Counsel for the Registrar had not been aware of it having been served.
THE REGISTRAR’S EVIDENCE
The Registrar’s first witness was Leah Wlodarek who has been an Inspector with the AGCO for 6 years. Ms. Wlodarek testified that she is familiar with the Applicant establishment, Sizzle Steak House and Lounge, hereafter referred to as “Sizzle”, and that she visited it on April 6, 2013. She arrived at the establishment at 1:16 a.m. along with another A.G.C.O. Inspector, Brian Sharpe, two members of the Hamilton Police Service “Heat Unit” and several members of the Hamilton Police Service “Action Team”.
Ms. Wlodarek described Sizzle as a long, thin building which is entered off Hess Street in the City of Hamilton. The establishment has a patio out front with a security person stationed there. She checked in with that security person and identified herself and, once inside the establishment, noted there is a coat check and cover charge checkpoint as well as two more security personnel. She stated that, where one pays the cover charge, there are stairways leading up to a second floor and down to the washroom area. She described the main floor level – the entrance level – as long and narrow with a bar on the right and a small dance floor and booths at the back.
Ms. Wlodarek testified that she entered the establishment with Mark Wright of the Hamilton Police Service and, upon entering “immediately saw a woman in a booth with her eyes closed”. She observed there were glasses and drink mix on the table in front of the woman. She and Officer Wright immediately proceeded toward the woman and, as they approached, she observed the woman “pass out sideways into the booth…with her skirt up and her buttocks exposed”. Ms. Wlodarek testified the woman did not respond when she approached the booth and touched her. She elaborated that she “knuckled her ribcage and prodded her before she responded” and that “she continued to pass in and out of consciousness”.
Ms. Wlodarek testified that, at that point, she did not observe any staff near the woman and elaborated that the staff was congregating near the bar area. She did not see any staff dealing with any patrons on the main floor. She described the room as dark, with flashing lights and loud music and opined it was not an atmosphere conducive to sleep. Ms. Wlodarek did observe a male patron in the booth with the woman but testified this fellow was not interacting with the woman at all and appeared to be texting on a cell phone, not paying any attention to the woman. Ms. Wlodarek testified this male patron advised that their group arrived at the establishment at about 11:00 p.m. and were served vodka.
Ms. Wlodarek’s evidence is that a female member of the Hamilton Police Service searched the woman’s purse to find her identification which confirmed she was over the age of 19 years and her name was J.K.. An ambulance was called and the male patron sitting in the booth was sent upstairs to get the rest of the group who, allegedly, were upstairs dancing. Ms. Wlodarek opined there were about 5 people in the group who were upstairs and that they also reported they had been drinking vodka.
Ms. Wlodarek testified that J.K was taken outside to the ambulance by a friend and security personnel; the ambulance left with her at 1:37 a.m.
Ms. Wlodarek’s evidence is that she and members of the Hamilton Police Service had been dealing with J.K. for between 5 and 10 minutes before the employees of the establishment approached them. She further stated that about 10 minutes after that, Mr. Kyle Skinner arrived and approached them. At that point Ms. Wlordarek states she advised Mr. Skinner of the charge being laid for permitting intoxication. She then left the premises at approximately 1:43 a.m., along with the Hamilton Police Service personnel in attendance.
On cross-examination, Ms. Wladarek testified that when she enters an establishment she begins a report and gets her time from that report. She clarified that Officer Wright and Officer Chad Mac Avelia were members of the Hamilton Police Service Action Team as was the female member who searched J.K.’s purse. She stated she did not recall any other members of the Action Team being present.
Further, in cross-examination, Ms. Wlodarek testified that the liquor bottle had been removed from the table before she attended and all that was there were mixes and glasses. She also clarified that Officer Wright initially approached the table with her while AGCO Inspector Mark Sharpe and Officer Mac Avelia went upstairs to the second level of the premises. When told that Mark Sharpe would testify that there was a bucket with a partly consumed bottle of vodka in it, Ms. Wlodarek stated she did not recall seeing it; that she was too concerned about the “drunk girl who was exposed”. She stated she doesn’t have the name of the male patron who was at the table with the woman. She testified that of the other members of J.K.’s group, one advised J.K had arrived at the establishment drunk, another said she had consumed a bottle of wine and vodka before going to the establishment and another advised they had all arrived for a birthday party and bottle service around 11:00 p.m. She was not able to give the names of these individuals. Ms. Wlodarek elaborated that the unnamed male patron who had been in the booth with J.K. was sober and he advised he had not arrived with J.K.; that she had been driven by another girl and met the rest of the group at the establishment. Ms. Wlodarek did not recall there being anymore than 5 individuals in the group: the sober male, another male, the birthday girl, J.K. and another female.
Ms. Wlodarek did not recall how many security persons were at the front of the establishment, that it was unusual that nobody approached while they were dealing with J.K. but that nobody did. She testified that she wrote her notes at the end of the night.
Finally, Ms. Wlodarek testified that she did not know how much wine and vodka J.K. had consumed before attending the establishment or whether she might have had anything else in her system that night which might have interacted with the alcohol she consumed.
Mark Wright, a member of the Hamilton Police Service since August 2007 testified next for the Registrar. Officer Wright confirmed the Applicant’s address is 25 Hess Street in Hamilton, Ontario and that he visited the establishment on April 6, 2013 as part of a team doing bar checks that night. Members of the Action Team from Hamilton Police Services as well as inspectors from the AGCO were involved.
Officer Wright testified that he made his notes on the visit to the Applicant’s establishment on April 6, 2013 immediately following the visit. He arrived at the establishment at 1:05 a.m. and noted he always checks his watch when he enters a bar. He stated that 1:05 a.m. would have been the time he entered onto the Applicant’s patio area. He then walked into the main floor of Sizzle which he described as a rectangular building with two floors. He testified that his attention was drawn to a female patron who “was lying on her side with her skirt hiked up”. He did not observe any staff, His attention went to the aforementioned girl, immediately. He testified that there were staff out on the patio and in the bar area as well as at the coat check, but that there was no staff with the girl in question.
Officer Wright testified that he works with a plain clothes unit so he pulled out his badge and identified himself to the female patron. He stated she was non-responsive and that AGCO Inspector, Leah Wlodarek was with him at this point.
Officer Wright testified that the female patron was not communicative, that they attempted to sit her up but she couldn’t do it herself; she had to be held up.
Officer Wright’s evidence is that there was a male patron sitting at the same table as the female and he claimed he knew the female but didn’t really know her. Consequently, Officer Wright asked the male patron to go and find the female patron’s friends. His evidence is that while the male patron went to locate the rest of their party, Officer Wright attempted to engage the female patron in conversation but was unsuccessful. He testified that, at this point, Officer Tam used his radio to call for an ambulance and they left Officer Chambers, a female member of the Action Team who was in uniform, with the female patron and AGCO Inspector Wlodarek. His evidence is that while they spoke with the female patron, he and his partner, Officer Chad Mac Avelia, walked around the upper floor of the establishment. When he returned to the main floor, the ambulance had not yet arrived, but Officer Chambers had gone through the female patron’s purse and established she was J.K. Officer Wright testified that when the ambulance arrived, J.K. had to be carried out to the ambulance; she could not walk on her own.
In cross-examination, Officer Wright testified he had taken 5 or 6 steps into the establishment when he observed J.K.. He estimated he was 10 to 12 feet from the door when he saw her. He stated he knows there were staff of the establishment out on the patio, at the door and inside the door but he doesn’t recall any staff at the coat or cover check area. He affirmed that when he first saw J.K., she was lying on her side in a booth. He testified that, at the booth, he saw a silver bucket with ice inside and a partially consumed bottle of vodka. He did not know how much vodka was in the bottle.
Chad Mac Avelia, a member of the Hamilton Police Service since August 2006 testified that he visited the Applicant establishment on April 6, 2013, that he made his notes and took witness statements. He arrived at Sizzle at about 1:15 a.m., went into the main floor area and observed a female patron sitting at one of the booths. His evidence is that he was the last member of the team to enter the room, that by the time he arrived, other members were dealing with the woman and he proceeded upstairs to the second floor and walked through the crowd there. When he returned downstairs to the main floor, the focus of the team was on the aforementioned female patron who he observed was not talking and could not walk unaided. He was made aware that an ambulance had been called and observed the female patron had to be assisted out of the building.
In cross-examination, Officer Mac Avelia testified that he could not say exactly what time the team had arrived at Sizzle, that he spent about 10 minutes upstairs, and that the second floor was very crowded with people shoulder to shoulder on the dance floor. He opined that some patrons he observed on the second floor were likely intoxicated but that he chose not to charge them; the focus was on J.K..
In re-direct, Officer Mac Avelia acknowledged that he believed it would be the establishment and not the individual patron who would be charged for being intoxicated but elaborated this was his first time in such a situation. He stated that, in any event, he did not believe those he observed on the upper floor of the establishment met the criteria for public intoxication in that they seemed capable of caring for themselves.
Brian Sharpe testified he has been an inspector with the AGCO for 6.5 years and that he was part of the team that visited Sizzle on April 6, 2013. His arrived around 1:15 a.m. along with AGCO Inspector Leah Wlodarek, the Heat Team from Hamilton Police Service consisting of officers Mark Wright and Chad Mac Avelia, as well as some members of the Hamilton Police Service Action Team. He testified that together, they conducted a joint inspection, that he entered the main floor of the establishment and did a walk around. His evidence is that he observed a female patron in a booth, sprawled out and lying on one side with her eyes semi-open. He testified there were not many people on that level and that he “saw her pretty quick”. He estimated there were about 10 people, not including staff, on the main floor of the establishment. He did not notice any staff members attending to the woman, that his partner, Inspector Wlodarek and a female police officer took the lead in dealing with the woman while he was making general observations and ensuring his partner, Ms. Wlodarek and the police woman were safe.
His evidence is that the woman was sprawled out in the booth. He did not recall specifically what was on the table but stated there was a bucket and glasses on the table. He could not recall any specifics about what amount or kind of liquid was in the bottle or the glasses.
Mr. Sharpe further testified that while Ms. Wlodarek and the police were helping the female patron, he spoke with her friend, K.W., who advised that J.K. had consumed half a bottle of wine and 2 to 3 drinks before going to the bar. Further, he advised K.W. told him she did not think J.K. was intoxicated before arriving at the bar and she did not say how long they had been at the establishment. (K.W. did not appear at this hearing and did not give evidence. Consequently, this hearsay evidence could not be tested in any way.)
In cross examination, Mr. Sharpe testified he did not speak with anyone other than K.W. and she did not say where J.K. drank before arriving at the bar or what, other than wine, she drank before arriving at the bar, what time she had arrived at the bar or what she had had to drink after she arrived at the bar. He confirmed that Ms. Wlodarek entered Sizzle, ahead of the other members of the joint team but that he did not know in what order the rest of the team entered the establishment. He stated that J.K. was in the second booth on the left, about 20 to 30 feet inside the main floor. He did not see her immediately upon entering the bar. The first time he noticed J.K, she was laying on her side in the booth.
J.K. testified that she is now 24 years of age, but that, on April 6, 2013, she was 23 years of age. It is her evidence that, on April 6, 2013, she attended the Applicant establishment for a friend’s birthday party. She confirmed that prior to going to the Applicant’s establishment she drank 2 or 3 beer at a friend’s house. She arrived at the Applicant’s establishment at about 11:30 p.m. and that she felt fine when she arrived there.
J.K .testified that her understanding is that you get a free bottle on your birthday, at the Sizzle, if you arrive by 11:00 p.m. Consequently, her understanding was that the birthday girl and a couple of friends arrived at there just before 11:00 p.m., got a bottle of vodka, and the remainder of the party arrived later. She testified that the rest of the group took 2 taxicabs to the club and that there were about 10 of them altogether who travelled by cab to the bar. Her evidence is that, when they arrived, they went to a booth and began having drinks. She had some vodka as well as “a few tequila shots”. She did not know how much she actually drank that night. She testified she was not on any medication at the time and did not knowingly take any drugs that night. She remembers her friends helping her up, that her legs were weak and that an ambulance took her to the hospital. She did not feel good at the hospital and that she took a cab from the hospital to her home the next morning because her friends, who had accompanied her to the hospital, had left by that time. She testified she did not remember anything else about the night in question.
On cross-examination, J.K. confirmed that about 10 of their party took cabs to the club and met the birthday girl there. In total there were about 13 of them in the party. She testified there was one bottle of vodka at the table in the booth. She does not remember very much about the night except the bottle of vodka was not very much for 13 people and that people did buy her drinks. Of the 13 people in the party, she stated she only knew about 4 of them; that the party was for a friend of a friend’s. She elaborated that her friends usually take care of her when she drinks, but people were buying her drinks at the bar and she doesn’t really know how much she actually drank.
Her evidence, on cross-examination is that when she drinks too much, her eyes get really red but that her friends always take care of her. One of her friends told her she looked like a zombie and she elaborated that she didn’t know why that would be because she drank the same amount as J.K.. had. J.K.. testified that she does not remember the police being at the club but that her friends have since told her the police were there and had spoken with her.
J.K .works three jobs, two of which are physically very demanding. She stated she had never fallen asleep at a bar before, but it’s possible she was exhausted that day and just couldn’t keep up. She testified that she goes to bars practically every weekend and could not account for what happened on April 6, 2013.
A nurse at the hospital told her she had been “bad” and had been “hitting the ambulance attendants and giving them a hard time”. She woke up at the hospital, not knowing where she was and she panicked and just left. Her evidence is that she did not speak with any doctor nor did she find out what might have caused her to lose consciousness.
J.K. testified she did not drink any wine on the night in question prior to going to Sizzle. She stated she brought beer to her friend’s house, drank 2 or 3 of them and then left for the bar. She stated, unequivocally, that she did not drink wine that night and only had liquor after arriving at Sizzle. She testified that her friends told her that her legs started giving out while she was dancing so they brought her downstairs to the booth. Her evidence is “that was just before the ambulance came”. She repeatedly testified that her friends take care of her when she drinks, that she had never fallen asleep in a bar before and that her friends would get her out before that would happen. If necessary, she said, her friends would call her mother but they would not leave her.
On re-examination, J.K.. again stated that her friends said her legs started giving out and that she looked like a zombie when she was dancing. She testified that when she got up in the hospital, she remembers feeling like something was not right.
In response to questions from the Tribunal, J.K. stated she woke up in the hospital and did not know where she was. She wanted to leave but a nurse told her to stay, but that she panicked and just left. She has never followed up with the hospital or any medical personnel about what might have caused her behaviour on the night in question. She reiterated that she panicked, got up, took a cab from the emergency ward and went right home. She elaborated that she probably should find out what really happened to her.
THE APPLICANT’S EVIDENCE
Kyle Skinner, the General Manager of Sizzle, testified that, when he is on the premises, he is normally stationed at the front door to greet patrons. The entrance to the club is on Hess Street; there is a doorman there to check Identification and to see if those seeking entrance are on the guest list. He elaborated that the doorman checks age, dress code and state of inebriation, if any. He testified that then the patrons go past a second doorman and a second screening process. The first floor has a security person outside, at the door, and 2 people inside. In addition, he stated there are roamers - 2 on the evening in question – who circulate throughout the club checking for signs of intoxication, leaks, spills, overcrowding, etc. His evidence was that the roamers generally travel separately and they generally make it through the circuit every 3 or 4 minutes. He defined the circuit as all of the first floor, up the stairs to the second floor, through that level and back down to the first floor. He further testified that, if the roamers are called to address an issue, they will go together, but that the log book did not note any incidents on the night of April 6, 2013
Mr. Skinner testified that the club does have bottle service and it can be ordered on the telephone or on the internet. Either way, it goes through the same person. Bottle service is not permitted for a group of less than 6 people and the bottle is not served until at least 6 people are present. They serve 26 ounce bottles of liquor. His evidence is that when you order bottle service, a booth is reserved and, when you arrive, a server or the manager will escort the party to a booth, confirm that 6 or more individuals are there and then take the order. He testified that the bottle service server is responsible for keeping supplies in the booth and monitoring intoxication. He testified that the bottle server for the booth that J.K. was in, was C.H., that the first floor bar would have 1 bar tender, 1 busboy and 1 server. The busboy is responsible to stock the bar and keep the room clean. If he is on the first floor, the busboy would responsible for the main floor and the patio. This means the busboy is not present in the room at all times – he is divided between the room, the patio and the stock room which is in the basement. He confirmed that the booth J.K. occupied on April 6, 2013 was on the first or main floor of the premises, towards the back.
On cross-examination, Mr. Skinner testified that he is usually positioned inside the outside door of the establishment and that between 11:30 p.m. and 1:00 a.m. he is focused on arriving guests. His is in constant contact with security throughout the evening via cell phone or radio. In addition, he testified that security has to walk by him so he is aware of what they are doing at all times.
Mr. Skinner testified he was not aware of J.K. until just before the ambulance arrived. He stated he was not with the AGCO Inspectors or the police when they found J.K., but he did speak with Inspector Sharpe outside the establishment.
Mr. Skinner confirmed the total capacity of the establishment is in excess of 500 patrons.
FACTS
The Tribunal makes the following findings of fact.
The evidence is clear that J.K. attended the Applicant’s establishment, Sizzle Steak House and Lounge sometime between 11:00 and 11:30 p.m. and was removed from the bar and taken to hospital in an ambulance about 2 hours later, at or around 1:35 a.m. on April 6, 2013 after passing out in a booth in the Applicant’s establishment. The only evidence about what she drank that night was given by J.K. herself. She admits, and I find as fact, that she consumed 2 to 3 beers prior to arriving at Sizzle and then shared a 26 oz. bottle of vodka with a group of 10 to 13 people after arriving at the establishment. Her evidence is, and I find as fact, that she also had a few tequila shots that were purchased for her by friends. J.K.. evidence is, and I find as fact, that while she was dancing on the second floor of Sizzle, her legs became weak and she could no longer support herself. Her friend told her she look like a zombie. I also accept her claim that she was not on any medication on the date in question and she did not knowingly take any drug. I accept her assertion and find as fact that she did begin to feel like she was getting drunk, but she has no explanation for having lost control of the use of her legs or falling asleep in the booth after her friends assisted her to the booth.
While there were suggestions, and some hearsay evidence provided by witnesses for the Registrar regarding the nature and amount of alcohol J.K. drank that night, the best evidence was that given by J.K. herself. The Tribunal does not know who the other witnesses might have been, who the other dozen or so persons in the party with J.K.were, how much alcohol J.K.. purchased or how much she was served. Inspector Sharpe testified that he spoke with a K.W. who, apparently contradicted J.K.. regarding what J.K.. drank before attending the bar, however, she apparently also stated that J.K.. was not drunk when she arrived at the bar. In any event, the only witness the Tribunal heard from who testified about what she consumed was J.K.. herself. She gave her evidence in a straightforward manner and seemed genuinely bewildered about how the events of the night in question unfolded. She acknowledged that she is a somewhat experienced drinker in that she goes to bars virtually every weekend. She stated that her friends always look out for her and, if necessary, would even call her mother to come and get her. I found her to be credible and I accept her evidence on the events of the evening is question as fact.
THE LAW
Section 45(1) of Ontario Regulation 719/90of the Liquor Licence Act provides:
The licence holder shall not permit drunkenness, unlawful gambling or
riotous, quarrelsome, violent or disorderly conduct to occur on the
premises or in the adjacent washrooms, liquor and food preparation
areas and storage areas under the exclusive control of the licence holder.
R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 719, s. 45 (1); O. Reg. 230/03, s. 25.
Contravention of this Regulation leads to the potential of a monetary penalty up to $5,000.00
Both Counsel for the Registrar and Counsel for the Applicant acknowledge that the prohibition in this regulation has two elements: drunkenness on the premises and permitting that drunkenness. The first element is not, necessarily, proof of the second element.
APPLICATION OF LAW TO FACTS
Counsel for the Registrar asserts that J.K. drank over a period of two hours and was so intoxicated that she had to be hospitalized. She asserts that if staff at the bar had been monitoring and regulating the service, they should have been aware of her condition sooner and cut her off before her signs of intoxication were so acute. On the facts, it is clear that J.K. was indeed intoxicated, but it is not clear, within the context of this legislation, that she was drunk . While I accept that she was sufficiently intoxicated to have fallen over in a booth and passed out, needing to be hospitalized for a number of hours, it is not clear what caused her intoxication. J.K. herself could not tell this Tribunal and no other witnesses were proffered who might have answered that question. The fact that she smelled of alcohol is proof only that she had been drinking. It does not establish drunkenness. It is unfortunate that the records from J.K.’s. visit to the emergency department on the night of April 6, 2013 had not been available for this hearing. The assertions that she looked like a zombie and her legs had ceased to support her may certainly lead one to question whether or not she was drunk or otherwise intoxicated but they do not, on the facts of this case, establish, on a balance of probabilities, that J.K. was drunk. If the Tribunal is wrong with regard to this first element, let us now turn to the second element of this Regulation, that being that the licensee knew or ought to have known J.K. was drunk.
The Tribunal heard from four witnesses testifying on behalf of the Registrar. Inspector Wladarek stated that she entered the premises first and immediately saw J.K. sitting upright with her eyes closed and, as Ms. Wlodarek approached her, J.K. slumped over onto her side in the booth. Ms. Wlodarek did not observe anyone serving on that level of the bar. J.K. testified she shared the bottle of vodka and had 2 or 3 tequila shots which other people bought for her. Counsel for the Applicant, Mr. Puskas asserts that a bar tender cannot observe signs of intoxication in people they do not serve. While that may be true, it isn’t sufficient to absolve the bar from its duty. Still, the evidence is that J.K. was either dancing or in the booth while at Sizzle. When it became evident to her friends that she was having difficulty, they brought J.K. from the dance floor to the booth. The evidence is that once she sat down in the booth, she closed her eyes and slumped over almost immediately upon the arrival of the AGCO Inspectors and the Action Team. We don’t know when J.K. showed signs of intoxication. J.K. stated her friends take care of her and, as Mr. Puskas asserts, the inference is that there were no signs of intoxication until her friends escorted her from the dance floor and sat her down in the booth. Query how the staff of the establishment could have known she was drunk or otherwise intoxicated? If, before sitting down in the booth, J.K. had been dancing, how could staff have known she was drunk or otherwise intoxicated? On the evidence, the only people who saw signs of drunkenness were the AGCO Inspectors and the police immediately upon their arrival which was, on the evidence, practically simultaneous with J.K. having left the dance floor and been seated in the booth.
There is no evidence to assist with determining the question of whether or not J.K. exhibited signs of drunkenness before the AGCO Inspectors and the Hamilton Police Service arrived at Sizzle on April 6, 2013. At best, we have speculation. The test is whether or not the staff ought to have known J.K. was drunk, having regard to all of the circumstances and in the context of the various obligations and duties placed on a licensee by the Act and its regulations. The answer to that must be “No” given that the Tribunal, after hearing all of the evidence proffered still does not know what happened to J.K. on the night of April 6, 2013 which resulted in her being removed from Sizzle by ambulance and transported to a hospital emergency room.
ORDER
Pursuant to the authority vested in it under the provisions of the Act, the Tribunal orders that the monetary penalty be set aside.
LICENCE APPEAL TRIBUNAL
_________________________
Patricia Cassidy, Vice-Chair
Released: December 30, 2013