Licence Tribunal
Appeal d'appel en Tribunal matière de permis
FILE: 8615/LLA
CASE NAME: 8615 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/Refuse an Application for a Licence
2378281 Ontario Inc., o/a Suya Spot Restaurant and Lounge (The) Appellant
-and-
Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming Respondent
-and-
Viscount Eyes Neighbourhood Watch, and Carlington Community Association Objectors
DECISION AND ORDER
ADJUDICATORS
Douglas Wallace, Vice-Chair Keith Penner, Member
APPEARANCES:
For the Appellant
Ainslie Stuart Dunstone, Paralegal
For the Respondent:
Phillip Morris, Counsel
For the Objectors
Kevin Waghorn, Agent, representing Carlington Community Association and Grace McClelland-Crout, Agent, representing Viscount Eyes Neighbourhood Watch
Heard in Ottawa -
May 13 & 14 and June 12 & 13, 2014
DECISION AND ORDER
BACKGROUND
The Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming (the “Registrar”) under the Liquor Licence Act, (the “Act”) issued a Notice of Proposal dated February 6, 2014 and an Amended Notice of Proposal on March 19, 2014 to refuse/review an application for a liquor licence by 2378281 Ontario Inc., o/a Suya Spot Restaurant and Lounge (Suya Spot). The president of the Appellant corporation, Liisa Maunula, hereinafter referred to as “the Appellant,” appealed the Notice of Proposal.
Preliminary Matters
The reference in the Notice of Proposal to outstanding criminal charges against Reynolds Okoh, spouse of the Appellant, was withdrawn.
Grounds for the Proposal
The grounds relied on by the Registrar may be summarized as follows:
That the Registrar had received one or more written objections to the application and required a review to determine whether the Appellant corporation is disentitled to a licence on the grounds of public interest (subsection 6(2)(h))
That there are reasonable grounds to believe that the business will not be carried on in accordance with the law and with integrity and honesty (subsection 6(2)(d)), and
That the Appellant made a false statement on the application. (subsection 6(2)(e)).
Evidence of the Objectors
Four witnesses gave evidence indicating why they considered it was not in the public interest to issue the licence in question. For the most part, their evidence related to conditions occurring while the premises were being rented out by the Appellant’s husband to third parties holding Special Occasion Permits (SOPs).
JT had lived across the street from Suya Spot, but moved and he now rents out three units on his property. He testified that he has experienced difficulty in retaining his tenants because of problems in the area, including vehicle break-ins and a nearby shooting incident.
He told the Tribunal about loud music and late night parties at the Suya Spot. Outside of these premises, he said, there was much loitering along with yelling, cursing and fighting occurring in the parking lot and adjacent park.
On cross examination, the witness agreed that none of his tenants were present at the hearing. He stated that he was not able to connect the shooting incident with the Suya Spot. When asked, he could not specify how many late night events had taken place on these premises. Further, he admitted that he had not actually seen any public drunkenness, display of firearms, illegal drug use or the trespassing on private property.
LV lives with his family in the immediate vicinity of Suya Spot and has occupied his home since July 2013. He said that he moved there because he thought the neighborhood was a family-friendly place.
Since moving in, the witness told the Tribunal that he had begun to have some concerns. He had witnessed a fist fight in the parking lot used by Suya Spot and had observed drunken people in the Mac’s Milk establishment. He believed that there was an increase in the use of alcohol in the neighborhood. He testified that there were now more police patrols in the area.
He was concerned about the people loitering in the doorway of Suya Spot. Specifically, he had seen about 30 people gathered there on a Friday evening in August 2013 between 7 and 9 pm. As well, he noted, there were often a number of people standing about in the parking lot of the premises. On cross examination, he was asked whether the people that he saw might be construction workers involved in the renovation of Suya Spot. The witness responded that the people he had referred to were certainly not construction workers.
RR has lived in the area since 1948. He stated that this residential district had been spoiled when pubs moved in. These establishments, he said, brought many problems. He noted the sight of broken bottles on the street, break-ins, street fights, rowdiness and drug-dealing. A liquor licence in the area meant, for him, the loss of his right to the peaceful enjoyment of his home.
On cross examination, the witness agreed that many of his concerns were more related to the past. He was not able to make any direct connection of his stated problems with the Suya Spot. He accepted the suggestion that conditions on a licence could help to restrict loud music and excessive noise outside the premises.
MD is a ten-year resident of the area. Her concern was that the Suya Spot entrance was on Shillington, a residential street, rather than on Merivale, which is more commercial. She noted that in the vicinity of Suya Spot there is a public park, a mosque and a retirement residence. In her view, this was not an appropriate location for licensed premises. She thought that this establishment would be better situated in an industrial area.
She said that having intoxicated people about was a threat to the neighborhood. She spoke of people sleeping in the park, urinating there and leaving garbage. She testified that she did not think the Suya Spot owner had the ability to control the situation in a positive way.
When asked by the Tribunal to be specific about the control measures she felt should be in place, she cited: no firearms, cameras needed for surveillance of the immediate area outside the premises, more and better liaison with the community, respect for the public park and a significantly reduced noise level associated with the establishment.
On cross examination, the witness agreed that Suya Spot was situated in a commercially zoned location. She stated that she was not opposed to having a restaurant there, but did not want a licensed premises, even if the licence were to have conditions attached to it.
The final objector to testify was Grace McClelland-Crout, who was representing the Viscount Eyes Neighbourhood Watch. She stated that, in her view and that of the association she represented, this was the wrong business in the wrong place. She added that they did not think that Suya Spot was the appropriate business for a residential street, near a park and numerous places of worship. There was a concern expressed that since Suya Spot only had 27 parking places, the overflow traffic would use the parking lots of these churches and those of other near-by businesses.
The witness expressed a concern over the hours of business for Suya Spot. She noted that one of their advertised events referred to activities continuing to 4 a.m. She added that when community members met with the owners, there had been discussions about much earlier closing, to 10 p.m. on Tuesdays to Thursdays and on Sundays. On Friday and Saturday, closing would be set for 1 a.m. A further issue raised by this witness was that of the proposed security arrangements. For her, they appeared to be quite inadequate. The business plan for Suya Spot remained unknown to the community. Thus, there were no clear answers to such questions as to the use of music, the resulting noise and the controls to be exercised to prevent the over-drinking of alcohol. She noted that the owners had not demonstrated the ability to manage this business.
A petition containing approximately 180 names opposing the issuance of a licence was filed with the Tribunal as Exhibit #15. The witness had played a major part in the collection of these signatures from residents in the vicinity of the Suya Spot.
On cross examination, the witness agreed that the neighbourhood watch program she worked with had succeeded, with the assistance of the police, in significantly reducing the number of break-ins in the community, She also agreed that she did not go often to the Shillington area and had not seen for herself some of the matters complained of such as debris around the premises of Suya Spot, When asked if she thought that the installation of digital cameras on the establishment, as a condition of the licence, would improve the situation, she responded by saying the she had a lack of trust in the owners.
Evidence of the Registrar
The first witness for the Registrar was Detective Constable Neil W. White. Constable White joined the Ottawa Police Service in 2004. In October 2013, he was assigned to the guns and gangs section of the Service.
The evidence of Constable White was that a victim of gunshot wounds appeared at the Emergency Department of the Ottawa Civic Hospital shortly after 4 a.m. on October 27, 2013. The investigation reports filed relative to this incident indicated that the shooting had occurred in the vicinity of the Suya Spot Restaurant and Lounge, and that the victim had taken refuge in the premises after the shooting. Approximately an hour later, while this incident was being investigated, two further gun shots were heard coming from the parking lot adjacent to the restaurant. Patrons were seen entering and leaving the restaurant while these two incidents were being investigated.
The shooting victim was interviewed at the Ottawa Civic Hospital, but was unwilling to provide any information to the police. Potential witnesses in the neighborhood were also not co-operative. Thus, it was not possible to lay any charges. The witness told the Tribunal that the digital recorder for the cameras outside the building had been removed.
On cross examination, Constable White stated that the victim was seen entering the premises of Suya Spot after being shot, but no witnesses were able to confirm that the shooting took place within the premises or was in any other way linked to Suya Spot.
The next witness for the Registrar was Constable Andrew Rowntree, who served as a statistical coordinator and policy adviser with the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario (AGCO) prior to his appointment as an inspector for the AGCO. He is presently assigned to the West Ottawa area which includes the premises in question.
As the local inspector, Constable Rowntree has responsibility for the oversight of Special Occasion Permits (SOPs). These SOPs may be for either public or private events. There are restrictions on an SOP for a private event, including that there are to be invited guests only, the public sale of tickets is prohibited and advertising of the event is not permitted.
Four such SOPs were issued for the Suya Spot premises. Two permits were applied for and issued to Reynolds Okoh, the Appellant’s husband, for events to be held on June 30, August 31 and September 1, 2013. The two permits for events held in July were applied for and issued to third parties renting the premises from Mr. Reynolds. All applications indicated that the events were for invited guests only, tickets would not be sold and there was to be no advertising. Alcohol could be sold, but not served outdoors.
Constable Rowntree testified that, contrary to the restrictions attached to these SOPs, tickets had been offered for sale and the events had been advertised. When he advised Mr. Okoh of this contravention during a meeting with him on August 31, 2013, Mr. Okoh at first denied there had been any advertisement. Then, when shown the advertisements appearing on a website, and told that alcohol could not be served at the events covered by this SOP, Mr. Okoh decided not to proceed with the events. Constable Rowntree stated that Mr. Okoh denied knowing who had applied for the liquor sales licence which was posted on the door of the premises.
Constable Rowntree was of the view that Mr. Okoh had attempted to operate an ongoing business through the use of SOPs, rather than applying for a proper liquor licence. No definition of an “ongoing business” was provided, but it was indicated that it is the Registrar who decides when this may be occurring.
On cross examination, the witness was challenged regarding the allegation that these SOPs had been used to operate an ongoing business; the witness was asked how this could possibly be, when there were, in total, only four applications and two of the events had been cancelled. No answer to this question was forthcoming.
The final witness for the Registrar was Constable Lester Nichols, a detective with the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP), with twenty-one years of service. In 2010, he was assigned to the Investigation Branch of the AGCO. He works with AGCO inspectors in the enforcement of all provisions of the Act and carries out liquor licence investigations. He was involved with the Suya Spot application and commenced his investigation on September 26, 2013.
On October 3, 2013, he contacted the Appellant, Liisa Maunula, who was then residing in Thunder Bay, Ontario. Constable Nichols told the Tribunal that, at the time of this first contact, he had no information that Reynolds Okoh was involved in the business.
The Appellant was advised at this time that she was required to submit a number of documents to the AGCO and to be interviewed. When the Employment History of the Appellant was subsequently received, Constable Nichols noted that it indicated that the Appellant had no experience in operating a licensed establishment. His research however indicated that she was listed as one the owners of another Suya Spot located at 1104 Somerset Street West in Ottawa, and that Reynolds Okoh was listed as another owner, along with Koele Khutlang.
The witness noted that the situation seemed unusual. At the time when Constable Rowntree was making inquiries about the SOP for the August 31, 2013 event, Reynolds Okoh denied knowing Liisa Maunula. Yet, the personal history report submitted on October 18, 2013 indicated that Reynolds Okoh, spouse of the Appellant, was appointed General Manager.
During the interview of Liisa Maunula by Constable Nichols (with Constable Rowntree in attendance), the Appellant had no explanation as to why Reynolds Okoh would deny knowing who she was. She went on to indicate that she was the sole proprietor of the Suya Spot Restaurant and Lounge and that no one else had any financial interest in the establishment.
Regarding other businesses, she stated that her husband, Reynolds Okoh, was the owner of the Suya Spot on Somerset. While she was listed as one of the owners, she did not participate in the business.
The Appellant was asked in the interview if she was aware of a number of police occurrences that had taken place in the vicinity of the Suya Spot on Merivale and Shillington. Among these reported incidents, there was a shooting, a stabbing, a disturbance and a fight. Her response was that she had become aware of the stabbing incident but did not know it was related to her establishment. Regarding all of these incidents she indicated that it may be necessary to change the closing hours to midnight or 1 a.m.
Respecting the SOP that had been issued for private events on August 31 and September 1, 2013, she admitted to knowing that there had been advertising, but denied being aware that these were required to be a private events. When this SOP was being investigated, she had no idea why Reynolds Okoh would deny knowing who she was.
Constable Nichols then referred the Tribunal to the Ottawa Police Service General Occurrence Report (Exhibit # 10) and specifically to GO # 2013-194172, GO # 2013-280763 and GO # 2013-281506. These reports refer to the stabbing, the disturbance and the fight that the Appellant was asked about in the interview.
In the stabbing incident, the victim and his friends refused to cooperate with the investigation and so no suspects were identified and no witnesses located. When this disturbance occurred, there was reported evidence of alcohol consumption and intoxication. When police were dispatched to 1319 Shillington, open liquor was observed outside Suya Spot.
In concluding his evidence, Constable Nichols doubted that Liisa Maunula and Reynolds Okoh would be able to carry on a liquor licence business in accordance with the law and with honesty and integrity. The police occurrences in the vicinity of the establishment indicated, he said, that a system of control, as required by the LLA, was lacking.
Further, the witness stated that, in his view, the real owner and person in control of the Suya Spot Restaurant and Lounge was Reynolds Okoh. He was convinced that Liisa Maunula was operating as a front for Reynolds Okoh.
On cross examination, Constable Nichols confirmed that in all of the General Occurrence police reports to which he had referred, in no case were any criminal charges laid. It was also pointed out by the Appellant’s representative that the authors of these police reports were not present to be cross examined.
EVIDENCE OF THE APPELLANT
The first witness called by the Appellant was Ike Jonathan Awgu, a barrister and solicitor practising in Ottawa. Mr. Awgu had assisted Mr. Reynolds Okoh in drafting the application for incorporation for the Suya Spot Restaurant located on Somerset Street in Ottawa.
It was noted by the witness that Liisa Maunula held some equity in this business, but was not a signatory to the document. Mr. Awgu said that he had assumed that the couple were married at the time, and in a family business not all members need sign such a document.
The Suya Spot on Somerset opened and operated as a take-out establishment. It never applied for a liquor licence.
The witness stated that he was also engaged in the drafting of the application for incorporation for the Suya Spot Restaurant and Lounge on Shillington (2378281 Ontario Inc.). This is the document related to the premises for which the current application for a liquor licence is pending. Regarding this certificate, the only signatory to this document is Liisa Maunula.
On cross examination, the witness was asked if it was appropriate to leave out a name in order to avoid a search for a criminal record. The witness stated that he had done a background check. He had contacted Constable Nichols and had learned that there were no police reports that related to Liisa Maunula. He repeated that in a family business all members are not required to sign a certificate of incorporation. Mr. Awgu concluded his testimony by saying that he had a favourable impression of both parties to these documents of incorporation. During the time that he worked with them, he felt that he was well acquainted with each of them.
The next witness was the Appellant, Liisa Maunula. She testified that she had been married to Reynolds Okoh for one year and that they had been together since 2008. She said that it was always her intention to have Mr. Okoh actively involved in the restaurant business but withheld his name from the application due to his outstanding criminal charges
The Appellant stated that she had leased the property on Shillington in June 2013. Prior to that, it had been vacant for one year. She noted that $200,000 was being invested to renovate the premises. The money invested had come from a loan her parents had secured for her use, the proceeds of the sale of a home she owned jointly with Reynolds Okoh in Thunder Bay and a loan from the landlord.
Since coming to Ottawa, the Appellant has been employed at a veterinary hospital. She and her husband have a joint bank account.
The Appellant has now acquired her Smart Serve Certificate and it is her plan to have all staff members earn this certificate before the establishment opens. She admitted that the answer she provided to question 16 on her Personal History Report accompanying her application was incorrect. She does not in fact have a minimum of three months experience in food and alcohol beverage service. She also admitted that the answer to Question D on the application indicating she would manage the day-to-day operation of the liquor business at the establishment was incorrect as it had always been her intention that her husband would manage this aspect of the operation.
The witness spoke of the previous rentals of the hall in her establishment during the summer and fall of 2013. She noted that it was not yet a restaurant, they were waiting for the renovations to begin and the landlord had recommended renting the facility. She said that she was aware that SOPs had been used and that there were problems with the renters and the events. She admitted to having made a mistake in this regard and was sensitive to the genuine concerns of the nearby residents over what had occurred.
The Appellant said that she recognized that being granted a liquor licence was a privilege and not a right. She stated that she was prepared to accept conditions on a licence and suggested several such conditions. Further, she filed with the Tribunal a proposed Compliance Plan (Exhibit #30) dated June 6, 2014.
On cross examination, the witness acknowledged that she had a commercial lease agreement for the premises and that her company was incorporated. When asked why her short-term loan agreement with the landlord was in her name and that of her husband, rather than in the name of the corporation, she was unable to answer. Similarly, she could not explain why payments were made directly to the renovator, rather than being paid through the corporate account. When asked whether she always intended to have Mr. Okoh designated as the manager but had not stated this earlier, she agreed that she had done so due to a concern about the pending criminal charges. Only after these charges were withdrawn did Mr. Okoh officially become the manager by document submitted on October 18, 2013.
The witness stated that he had no experience in the selling and serving of liquor. He did have some experience in working in a restaurant run by his mother in Nigeria. Later, in Ottawa, he was associated with the Suya Spot on Somerset. Here, he became convinced that there was a market for Suya food, which is popular within the Nigerian community.
Mr. Okoh outlined his plans for the Suya Spot Restaurant and Lounge on Shillington. All of the basement area of the building will be licensed for the sale and service of alcohol. The area will be divided in three sections with the southwest area being a games room, the centre section will be the restaurant area and the southeast side will constitute an assembly hall, which may be rented for special events.
Food is to be served at all times while the restaurant is open and 70 percent of the revenues will flow from the food and beverage services of the restaurant. There are to be no SOPs permitted with the rental of the assembly hall. At all times and in every section of the establishment, liquor sales will be controlled by the Suya Spot management. Around the entrance area, a fence is to be erected.
Speaking to the events involving the SOPs, in the summer and fall of 2013, the witness expressed regret for all that had occurred adding that if it were not for these SOPs a hearing would not have been necessary.
During cross examination, Mr. Okoh was asked why his name was not on the application for the liquor licence, since the business plan seemed to be entirely his. In his response, he was not willing to agree that it was the pending criminal charges that had kept him in the background. He concluded that, currently, he was facing no criminal charges and that there were no convictions on his record.
ISSUE
The issue in this case is whether the Appellant is disentitled to the issuance of a licence pursuant to the provisions of clauses (d), (e) or (h) of subsection 6(2) of the Act.
Licence to sell
Section 6
(2) Subject to subsection (4) or (4.1), an Applicant is entitled to be issued a licence to sell liquor except if,
(d) the past or present conduct of the persons referred to in subsection (3) affords reasonable grounds for belief that the Applicant will not carry on business in accordance with the law and with integrity and honesty;
(e) the Applicant or an employee or agent of the Applicant makes a false statement or provides false information in an application under this Act.
(h) the licence is not in the public interest having regard to the needs and wishes of the residents of the municipality in which the premises are located. R.S.O. 1990, c. L.19, s. 6 (2); 1998, c. 18, Sched. E, s. 167 (1, 2); 2006, c. 11, Sched. B, s. 8 (1); 2006, c. 34, s. 16 (5).
It should be noted that “Applicant” in clause (d) is defined in subsection 6(3) of the Act as including “A person having responsibility for the management or operation of the business of the Applicant”.
ANALYSIS
The Tribunal will deal with each of the alleged disentitlements in the order set out in the Act.
The Tribunal finds that Reynolds Okoh falls within the expanded definition of Applicant in clause 6 (2)(e). This finding is based on the fact that both the Appellant and Mr. Okoh referred consistently throughout their evidence to “their” plans, part of the financing of the renovations was obtained through the sale of a home in which he had a half interest, his being a party to the loan agreement to obtain additional funding for the renovations and of course, his written appointment as General Manager filed as Exhibit 17.
When looking at the conduct of the Appellant and her husband the Tribunal gave particular attention to the use which was made of the premises in the summer months of 2013 while the Appellant was in Thunder Bay and the premises were being leased out by Mr. Okoh. The evidence from the Objectors spoke loudly of Mr. Okoh’s failure to exercise reasonable care to see that those he rented the premises to would behave lawfully. References to loud music, loitering, yelling, cursing and fighting in the area adjacent to the premises leased by the Appellant are all legitimate causes for concern in the community. They spoke of intoxicated people in the neighbourhood, some of them sleeping in the nearby public park, urinating there and leaving their garbage. Other references related to late hours of operation and inadequate security around the premises. Additional evidence was provided by the police of shootings and a stabbing in the early morning hours while the people were gathered in the adjoining parking lot.
If Mr. Okoh was present (a matter on which he expressed a surprising degree of uncertainty), he should have exercised some control over those he allowed to use the premises. If he was not present, he showed no evidence of having taken care to see that those he rented to were responsible and understood and would observe the terms of their SOPs.
Throughout the whole period Mr. Okoh showed no understanding or sensitivity to the legitimate concerns of local residents.
The Tribunal also looked at the more recent conduct of the Appellant and her husband, and in particular, their attempt to explain their actions to residents at a neighborhood meeting. This meeting did not go well as a result of the obvious bad will that had been created during the period of the SOPs and the apparent lack of any experienced moderator. It was also not helped by the presence of an apparent guest of Mr. Okoh’s who refused to be identified. It was a step in the right direction, however, and the Appellant is to be commended for her efforts in this regard.
Finally, the Tribunal looked at the failure of the Appellant and her husband to admit at any time prior to October 18, 2013 the involvement of Mr. Okoh in the business. The Appellant, Liisa Maunula, frankly admitted that she had attempted to conceal Mr. Okoh’s involvement on her application for fear that his outstanding criminal charges would disentitle her to a licence, while Mr. Okoh, falsely the Tribunal believes, denied that the omission of his name until after the charges against him had been dropped, had anything to do with the criminal charges he was facing at the time. The Tribunal views the attempt of the parties to conceal the true identity of the parties to the application until the charges were disposed of as a strong indication of their lack of honesty and integrity.
Considering the evidence as a whole the Tribunal finds on a balance of probabilities that the conduct of the Appellant and her husband provides reasonable grounds to believe that they will not carry on business in accordance with the law and with integrity and honesty.
Turning now to clause 6(2)(e) of the Act, the Tribunal finds that the Appellant, Liisa Maunula, made a number of false statements on the Application she filed for this licence. These changes cannot fairly be described as “typos” as the Appellant described them, but rather indicate a settled intention to mislead the Registrar as to Mr. Okoh’s involvement and her lack of experience.
In light of the filing of the written document appointing Reynolds Okoh General Manager and the evidence of both the Appellant and her husband as to Mr. Okoh’s participation in the planning and execution of his dream to expand his business to new licensed premises, there can be no doubt but that the answer to question “D” on the Application indicating that Liisa Manula was to manage the day-to-day operation of the business was false. There can also be no doubt but that the Appellant’s answer to question 16 on her Personal History Record indicating a minimum of three months experience was likewise false.
The Tribunal finds as a result that the Appellant is disentitled to a licence under this section of the Act.
Given the Tribunal’s findings that the Appellant is not entitled to be issued a licence due to a failure to meet the test under clauses 6(2)(d) and 6(2)(e), it is not necessary for the Tribunal to make a finding on the question of public interest under clause 6(2)(h). However, since the Tribunal heard substantial evidence and argument on that issue, the Tribunal is prepared to indicate its finding in this area.
The Tribunal accepts the unchallenged evidence of the Objectors that there was a marked increase in rowdiness and violence in the immediate area of the Suya Spot premises during the summer of 2013 when the premises were being rented out by Mr. Okoh. The Tribunal finds that this rowdiness and violence was the direct result of the consumption of alcoholic beverages on the premises for which a licence is now sought. In some cases it appears that alcohol was being consumed without the appropriate permit. In other cases, Special Occasion Permits were obtained but clearly the conditions respecting non-advertisement were not complied with. Mr. Okoh’s evidence was that he had no recollection of the identity of the people to whom he rented the premises and could not even recall whether or not he attended most events. It is fair to conclude, and the Tribunal does so find, that he took no care to see that those he rented to were responsible or would observe the conditions of their SOPs. This, in the Tribunal’s view is not indicative of the style of management that will ensure licensed premises will be operated in a responsible fashion.
Although the Appellant indicated that she would, if granted a licence, voluntarily comply with a number of conditions aimed at reducing the types of incidents of rowdiness and violence which occurred in the past and indicated that it was her intention to hire experienced help at the management level to assist her in the enforcement of these conditions, the position of Mr. Okoh as General Manager casts grave doubts on her ability to carry out these plans should she be issued a licence at the present time.
In all the circumstances, including the Appellant and her husband’s lack of knowledge and experience and her husband’s past conduct with respect to the operation of the premises while licensed under SOPs, the Tribunal finds that the issuance of this licence at the present time would more likely than not result in a continuance of the incidents of public disorder observed by the Objectors in the past. In the result the Tribunal finds that the issuance of this licence would not be in the public interest having regard to the needs and wishes of the residents of the municipality.
ORDER
Pursuant to the authority vested in it under the provisions of the Act, the Tribunal directs the Registrar to refuse the application by 2378281 Ontario Inc., O/A Suya Spot Restaurant and Lounge (The).
LICENCE APPEAL TRIBUNAL
Douglas R. Wallace, Vice-Chair
Keith Penner, Member
Released: July 10, 2014