Licence Tribunal
Appeal d'appel en
Tribunal matière de permis
2014-10-10
FILE:
8845/LLA
CASE NAME:
8845 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, s. 8(4)(b) and 21(1) - to Review an Application for a Licence
Zorra Bar & Grill Inc. o/a Zorra Bar & Grill
Appellant
-and-
Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming
Respondent
-and-
City of Toronto
Added Party
REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDER
ADJUDICATOR:
E. Alan Garbe, Vice-Chair
APPEARANCES:
For the Appellant:
Sean O’Connor, Paralegal
For the Respondent:
Tamara Brooks, Counsel
Rena Khan, Counsel
For the Added Party:
Mark Crawford, Counsel
Heard in Toronto:
September 17, 2014
REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDER
The Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming (the “Registrar”) under the Liquor Licence Act (the “Act”), issued a Notice of Proposal, number 20348, dated May 7, 2014, to review an application for a liquor licence by Zorra Bar & Grill Inc. o/a Zorra Bar & Grill on the basis that the Registrar received one or more written objections to the application. A Notice of Appeal by the Appellant was filed on May 22, 2014.
The application for a liquor licence for both the indoor and outdoor areas was received by the Registrar in or about March, 2014. In accordance with the Act, notice of the application was published and several objections were received within the permitted period to file objections and two letters of objection were received shortly after the end of the period for objections. Two objectors attended the hearing and Scott Mitchell spoke on their behalf and on behalf of the objectors not in attendance.
At the commencement of the hearing, the Appellant advised that it was withdrawing its application for a licence for the outdoor patio with the result that the only matter before this Tribunal is the appeal with respect to the application for the licence for the indoor premises.
Ms. Khan confirmed that the Registrar would not be taking a position with respect to the application.
Mr. Mitchell gave evidence at the hearing. He stated that two community meetings had been held with respect to this application, both of which were well attended by local residents. The Appellant was asked to provide a menu which was not received until five months later. The objectors are concerned that, although the Appellant has stated that the facility will be a family restaurant, the menu suggests it will be more along the lines of a “bar”. No menu was produced at the hearing.
The neighbourhood where the premises are located, which is referred to as the “Junction”, is zoned commercial/residential with 62% of the properties being residential. Within a five block area, there are 12 licensed establishments. As a result of the existence of these establishments, the residents have experienced violence, public urination, sexual harassment and significant parking problems.
The objectors are concerned that the establishment proposed by the Appellant will increase the density of licensed establishments in this neighbourhood, cause more disturbances, vandalism, harassment, increase parking and traffic problems and create excessive noise late in the evening when children in the neighbourhood are trying to sleep.
With the assistance of Mr. Crawford, it was explained to the objectors that matters of parking and density, which are controlled by municipal zoning by-laws are matters within the purview of the City of Toronto and not matters upon which the Tribunal can make a determination to refuse an application for licence.
The City of Toronto does not object to the issuance of the licence for an indoor area provided certain conditions attach to the licence. The City of Toronto has, therefore, with the agreement of the Registrar and the Appellant, proposed that two conditions attach to the licence. The objectors did not oppose these conditions, but were asking that the licence not be issued.
In a hearing such as this, the onus is on the objectors to establish on a balance of probabilities that the issuance of the liquor licence is not in the public interest. The evidence before the Tribunal in this regard is not persuasive. Their concerns about the Appellant are speculative.
Having heard and considered the submissions from the parties, the Tribunal hereby approves the application for a liquor licence made by Zorra Bar & Grill Inc. o/a Zorra Bar & Grill at 1595 Dupont Street, Toronto, subject to the usual and required municipal clearance letters and application requirements and subject to the following conditions, consented to by the Appellant, which shall attach to the licence:
The Licensee shall post a prominent sign at each exit that reminds and/or encourages departing patrons to be considerate of the surrounding community and encourages patrons that are smoking outside the premises to do so away from the rear of the property.
The Licensee shall provide a telephone number for residents to register concerns or complaints. This line will normally be answered by a staff member during the Licensee’s published hours of operation. This line will be equipped with a functioning message service for those periods when the Licensee’s staff is otherwise occupied and when the establishment is closed.
LICENCE APPEAL TRIBUNAL
E. Alan Garbe, Vice-Chair
Released: October 10, 2014