Licence Tribunal
Appeal d'appel en
Tribunal matière de permis
2014-08-19
FILE:
8934/LLA
CASE NAME:
8934 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 Licence
1883943 Ontario Inc. o/a Wood House
Appellant
-and-
Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming
Respondent
DECISION AND ORDER
ADJUDICATOR:
Mary Ann Spencer, Member
APPEARANCES:
For the Appellant:
Jingying Li, Agent
For the Respondent:
Tamara Brooks, Counsel
Rena Khan, Counsel
Heard in Toronto:
August 12, 2014
BACKGROUND
The Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming (the “Registrar”) under the Liquor Licence Act, (the “Act”) issued a Notice of Proposal, number 20423, dated June 25, 2014 to review an application for a licence by 1883943 Ontario Inc. operating or intending to operate as Wood House Barbeque (the “Appellant”). The Appellant has applied for a liquor sales licence for the premises located at 4664 Yonge Street, Unit 13, Toronto, with a capacity of 35 persons. Following the publication of notice of the application for the licence, the Alcohol and Gaming Commission (“AGCO”) received one letter of objection from the City of Toronto. Having received a written objection to the application, the AGCO proposes to review the application in relation to the public interest.
August 12, 2014 was scheduled as a pre-hearing in this matter. At the request of the Registrar’s representative, and with the consent of the Appellant‘s Agent and Mark Crawford and Scott Nowoselski, Co-Counsel representing the sole objector, the City of Toronto, the matter was reconvened as a hearing with the member who conducted the pre-hearing presiding.
As a preliminary matter, Ms Brooks, the AGCO Counsel, advised that the Registrar was not taking a position in this matter. A copy of the letter of objection received by the AGCO was filed as Exhibit 3. Ms Brooks noted that the Registrar accepted the letter, which cites an April 1, 2 and 3, 2014 decision of the City of Toronto as proof of the needs and wishes of the residents in accordance with section 7.1.1. of Regulation 719.
As a further preliminary matter, the Tribunal asked Co-Counsel representing the City of Toronto, if the City of Toronto intended to request party status and was advised that it did not.
ISSUE
The issue to be addressed in this hearing is whether or not, and in light of section 6(2)(h) of the Act, granting of a licence to the Appellant is in the public interest.
OBJECTOR’S EVIDENCE
Mr. Crawford provided the Tribunal with a copy of the City of Toronto’s April 1, 2, and 3 decision (Exhibit 4) which directs the City Clerk to declare that each liquor licence application is not in the public interest unless the applicant has filed an enforceable undertaking that the applicant will take the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health Safer Bars program within 12 months of the issuance of the licence, and a letter from the local MPP supporting the licence application. Mr. Crawford stated that this decision was made in response to a ‘change in regime’ at the AGCO whereby certain types of licence conditions would no longer be approved.
Mr. Crawford advised the Tribunal that the Appellant has not provided the letter from its MPP. In response to questions from Ms Brooks, Mr. Crawford agreed that the Centre of Addiction and Mental Health Safer Bars program no longer exists. He also understands that MPPs have received direction from the provincial Integrity Commissioner not to respond to requests for letters supporting licence applications.
Mr. Crawford indicated that he would be calling no evidence with respect to the Appellant’s application and the public interest.
APPELLANT’S EVIDENCE
Ms Li stated that she discovered that no course was available when she contacted the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health. She did contact her local MPP to obtain the letter required by the City but was told that because of the provincial election, no letter could be issued.
ANALYSIS
The issue to be addressed in this hearing is whether or not granting of a licence to the Appellant is in the public interest.
The Act recognizes the impact that the establishment of licensed premises may have on a community: section 6(2)(h) states that an applicant is entitled to be issued a licence to sell liquor except if “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”. An applicant (the Appellant before the Tribunal) has a qualified right to a licence; the onus is on the Objector to establish, on a balance of probabilities, that the issuance of a licence is not in the public interest.
In this case, the sole Objector, the City of Toronto, led no evidence to support that the issuance of a licence to the Appellant is not in the public interest. Rather, the objection was made pro forma in accordance with the City’s April 1, 2, and 3, 2014 decision which was made in response to changes made by the AGCO with respect to the types of conditions it would approve to be attached to liquor licences. In the absence of any evidence with respect to any concerns or issues arising from the Appellant’s application for a licence, the Objector has not established that the issuance of the licence is not in the public interest.
ORDER
The Tribunal therefore directs the Registrar to approve the application for a liquor licence made by 1883943 Ontario Inc. o/a Wood House Barbecue, subject to the filing of all usual and required municipal clearance letters and application requirements.
LICENCE APPEAL TRIBUNAL
Mary Ann Spencer, Member
Released: August 19, 2014