Licence Appeal Tribunal

Safety, Licensing Appeals and Standards Tribunals Ontario

Tribunal d’appel en matière de permis Tribunaux de la sécurité, des appels en matière de permis et des normes Ontario

Date: 2018-01-18

Appeal from a Notice of Proposal of the Registrar of Alcohol, Gaming and Racing under the Liquor Licence Act to Revoke Licences

Binhthanh Restaurant and 2474058 Ontario Inc. o/a Olympic Restaurant and Tavern Appellants

-and-

Registrar of Alcohol, Gaming and Racing Respondent

DECISION

ADJUDICATOR: Laurie Sanford, Vice-Chair Stephen Scharbach, Member

APPEARANCES:

For the Appellants: Sanjay Sookram, Student-at-Law

For the Respondent: Faye Kidman, Counsel Danielle Bastarache, Counsel

Heard in Toronto: July 6, 7, October 23, 30 and November 2, 2017

Introduction

1This is an appeal of a Notice of Proposal issued by the Registrar of Alcohol, Gaming and Racing ("Registrar") to revoke two liquor sales licences held by Ms. Binh Longtin.

2The licences allow liquor to be sold in two small restaurants owned and operated by Ms. Longtin in Woodstock, Ontario. Both licences are subject to similar conditions that are mainly intended to narrowly restrict the involvement of Thanh La, Ms. Longtin's 33-year-old son, in running both restaurants.

3The conditions allow Mr. La to work in the kitchens of both establishments but essentially prohibit him from further involvement. They prohibit him from having an ownership interest, participating in management, being involved in the sale or service of liquor, or serving patrons. One of the conditions on one of the licences also requires Mr. La to inform the Registrar of any criminal or provincial charges within 5 days.

4The Registrar's proposal to revoke alleges that:

• Mr. La has been involved in the management of one of the restaurants and has failed to report a criminal charge, thereby breaching one condition attached to each licence,
• Ms. Longtin provided false or misleading information in a licence and renewal application by stating that she would manage the licensed premises
• Ms. Longtin's past conduct in providing false information and failing to adhere to the conditions affords reasonable grounds for belief that the businesses will not be carried on in accordance with the law and with integrity and honesty.

5Ms. Longtin's position is that she has complied with the conditions. She asserts that her son is not involved in the management of either restaurant, she was unaware of the alleged failure by her son to report a criminal charge and denies that she provided false information in her applications.

6For the following reasons, we conclude that Ms. Longtin has breached a condition of each licence. However, we are not convinced that she provided false information on her applications or that her past conduct affords reasonable grounds for belief that she will not carry on business in accordance with the law and with integrity and honesty.

7The parties have requested the opportunity to make submissions as to the appropriate sanction given our findings and the Tribunal directs that written submissions be made as set out below.

The Act and the Notice of Proposal to [Revoke](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-l19/latest/rso-1990-c-l19.html)

8The Registrar's notice, dated December 28, 2016, proposes to revoke the liquor licences of Ms. Longtin's two restaurants – the Binthanh Restaurant ("BT"), and the Olympic Restaurant and Tavern ("Olympic").

9Both licences were issued under the Ontario Liquor Licence Act Act"). The Act (s. 15) provides that the Registrar may issue a proposal to revoke a liquor licence where the licensee has breached the Act, regulations, or a condition of the licence. In this case, the Registrar alleges that the licensee has breached conditions attached to both licences.

10In addition, the Registrar may issue a Notice of Proposal to revoke if grounds exist under s. 6(2) that would disentitle the licensee to a licence if the licensee were an applicant. Two of those grounds are relevant in this case.

11Clause 6(2)(d) provides that an applicant is not entitled to a licence where, "the past or present conduct of … [the applicant, officer/director of the applicant, manager etc.], affords reasonable grounds for belief that the applicant will not carry on business in accordance with the law and with integrity and honesty."

12Clause 6(2)(e) provides that an applicant is not entitled to a licence where the applicant makes a false statement or provides false information in an application.

13The Registrar's proposal to revoke the BT and Olympic liquor licences is also based on both of those grounds.

14More specifically, in the case of the Olympic restaurant liquor licence, the Registrar alleges that:

a) Ms. Longtin breached a condition attached to the Olympic liquor licence that requires that Mr. La "...shall not have any involvement in the management of the licensed business…" According to the Registrar, Mr. La was the true manager of the Olympic, or at least was performing some management functions.

b) Ms. Longtin provided false information in a transfer application submitted in August, 2016, and in a licence renewal application submitted in April, 2016. In both applications, Ms. Longtin was asked who will manage the Olympic and her response was "self". The Registrar says this response was false because in fact Mr. La was the true manger, or at least was performing some management functions.

c) Ms. Longtin's failure to adhere to the conditions attached to the licences of both the Olympic and BT restaurants, as well as the false information provided in the Olympic applications, affords reasonable grounds for belief that she will not carry on business in accordance with the law and with integrity and honesty.

15In the case of the BT restaurant, there is no allegation that Ms. Longtin provided false information on applications. However, the Registrar alleges that:

a) A condition attached to the BT liquor licence requiring Mr. La to "…inform the Registrar of any further charges, criminal or provincial, within five (5) days of being served with those charges" was breached. According to the Registrar, Mr. La was arrested and charged with criminal offences in 2014. Since Mr. La did not inform the Registrar, the licence condition was breached.

b) Ms. Longtin's failure to adhere to the conditions attached to the licences and false information provided on the Olympic applications affords reasonable grounds for belief that Ms. Longtin will not carry on business in accordance with the law and with integrity and honesty.

16Based on the Registrar's position as set out in the notice of proposal and advanced during the hearing, the issues for the Tribunal's consideration are:

1. Did Mr. La become involved in the management of the Olympic restaurant thereby causing a breach of the conditions attached to the Olympic liquor licence?

2. Did Ms. Longtin provide a false statement or false information in a transfer application and/or a renewal application relating to the Olympic liquor licence?

3. Was a condition of the BT restaurant breached as result of Mr. La's failure to notify the Registrar of charges laid against him?

4. Do the facts found in connection with the above afford reasonable grounds for belief that Ms. Longtin will not carry on business in accordance with the law and with integrity and honesty?

5. Given the findings in connection with the above, what sanction is required to protect the public interest?

Issues and Analysis

Issue # 1 - Did Mr. La become involved in the management of the Olympic restaurant thereby causing a breach of the conditions attached to the Olympic liquor licence?

17We find that the evidence establishes that Mr. La was involved in the management of the Olympic restaurant and condition # 3 attached to the Olympic liquor licence was thereby breached.

18Ms. Longtin acquired the Olympic restaurant in 2015 and applied to the AGCO, through her numbered company, to transfer Olympic's liquor licence from the previous owner to her company.

19The AGCO had concerns about Mr. La's involvement and proposed conditions that restricted his involvement to working in the kitchen only.

20On April 4, 2016, Ms. Longtin consented a liquor licence being granted with the following conditions:

1. Thanh La may only be employed to work in the kitchen of the establishment. Mr. Thanh La shall not serve any patrons of the establishment in any capacity.

2. Thanh La shall not have any involvement in the sale or service of liquor in the establishment.

3. Thanh La shall not have any involvement in the management of the licensed business and shall have no ownership interest in any part of the licensed business. (emphasis added)

4. Thanh La shall never be the sole employee working in the establishment.

21The Registrar alleges that condition # 3 was breached and mainly relies upon the evidence of two witnesses; Mark Lavalee, a senior AGCO inspector, and Allan LeBlanc, an OPP officer seconded to the AGCO.

22With respect to Mr. Lavalee, he testified that on December 17, 2015, he attended at the Olympic restaurant to do a two-year compliance assessment. At this point, Ms. Longtin was operating the Olympic but the above conditions had not yet been attached to Olympic's liquor licence.

23Mr. Lavalee entered the premises, encountered a female server, and asked her to speak with the owner, manager, or person in charge. The server pointed to Mr. La and said he was the owner.

24Mr. Lavalee spoke to Mr. La and told him that he was there to conduct the two-year compliance assessment. Once Mr. Lavalee told Mr. La that he was an AGCO inspector, Mr. La told him that he was not the owner and only works in the kitchen.

25Mr. Lavalee was aware of the conditions on the BT liquor licence that restricted Mr. La's involvement to working in the kitchen of that restaurant, and was concerned that Mr. La may be involved in management at the Olympic. He sent an email to his manager suggesting that an investigation may be appropriate, but an investigation was not started at that time.

26We find that Mr. Lavalee's testimony did not significantly assist in determining whether condition # 3 was breached. Firstly, at most his evidence suggests that a server in the restaurant may have regarded Mr. La as the owner at that time. Secondly, Mr. Lavalee's inspection took place in December, 2015. The conditions on the Olympic restaurant liquor licence restricting Mr. La's involvement were imposed on April 4, 2016, several months later.

27With respect to the evidence of Det. LeBlanc, he was assigned to gather information necessary to assess and process an application that Olympic made to the AGCO in 2016 for a teletheatre licence. That licence would have allowed live streaming of horse races and off-track betting in the Olympic restaurant premises.

28Det. LeBlanc conducted inquiries that included a review of the application, articles of incorporation, liquor licence and personal disclosure forms completed by Ms. Longtin and another individual, ("C.V."), who was included on the teletheatre application. Det. LeBlanc also conducted background checks, attended at the Olympic restaurant, and conducted personal interviews with Ms. Longtin, C.V., and Mr. La.

29Det. LeBlanc testified that the focus of his investigation was to determine suitability for a teletheatre licence and was not focused on possible breaches of the Olympic restaurant liquor licence. However, as described below, some of the information he gathered was relevant to the issue of Mr. La's involvement in the management of Olympic.

30Det. LeBlanc testified that on July 13, 2016, he telephoned the Olympic to speak to Ms. Longtin about a letter requesting documents that he was attempting to fax to her. He spoke to a female employee who told him that Ms. Longtin was not available. According to Det. LeBlanc, he could hear a male voice in the background telling the employee what to say. Det. LeBlanc asked to speak to that person who, when he got on the phone, identified himself as Ms. Longtin's son.

31According to Det. LeBlanc, Mr. La stated that he has nothing to do with the restaurant and that he "comes and goes." However, Det. LeBlanc got the impression that Mr. La was more involved than that because he seemed to be directing the employee's answers on the telephone and was familiar with the restaurant.

32Det. LeBlanc faxed the letter to Ms. Longtin and C.V. Two days later, on July 18, 2016, Det. LeBlanc received a telephone call from Mr. La asking questions about the documents requested in the letter. Det. LeBlanc testified that he received no calls from Ms. Longtin or C.V., although they were the applicants for the teletheatre licence.

33Det. LeBlanc became concerned that Mr. La was more involved than he claimed and decided to visit the restaurant unannounced. He stopped at the Olympic restaurant for a meal on August 2, 2016 and did not identify himself as an investigator.

34There were two staff members present, a female at the front of the establishment (later identified as C.V.), and Mr. La in the kitchen. Det. LeBlanc asked C.V. if she was the owner. She indicated that Mr. La was the owner. Mr. La emerged from the kitchen and Det. LeBlanc asked him if he was the owner to which Mr. La replied "I am the owner".

35Det. LeBlanc's observation that Mr. La was directing a staff member's answers on the telephone, and Mr. La's statement that he was the Olympic's owner do not, by themselves, carry much weight. Ms. Longtin stated in her testimony that she was aware that Mr. La sometimes exaggerated his role at the restaurant to enhance his image. However, they were troubling and Det. LeBlanc was understandably concerned about Mr. La's true role in the business.

36Det. LeBlanc personally interviewed Ms. Longtin and C.V. on September 20, 2016. Both interviews were conducted in the presence of Michael Commisso, a paralegal who was assisting Ms. Longtin with the teletheatre licence application.

37In her interview, Ms. Longtin stated that Olympic had a business bank account from which employees and suppliers were paid and Mr. La had signing authority for that account. She stated that Mr. La deposited cash from the business into that account and signed cheques from that account to pay suppliers.

38She also stated that the employees' hours of work were provided to an accountant who calculated the appropriate deductions. Once the appropriate payment amount was determined, Mr. La paid the employees in cash.

39Det. LeBlanc concluded that Mr. La was acting as manager and therefore requested that Mr. La submit a personal disclosure form and attend an interview which took place on September 23, 2016.

40Before the interview, Det. LeBlanc checked criminal and police records relating to Mr. La. Det. LeBlanc testified that Mr. La's criminal and police records revealed a 2005 conviction, and criminal charges which were later withdrawn in 2014.

41Det. LeBlanc testified that at the interview, Mr. La stated that he assisted his mother at both of her restaurants and worked in the kitchen only. However, he acknowledged that both he and his mother had signing authority over the Olympic business account.

42Ms. Longtin testified at the hearing. She stated that she is the sole owner of the Olympic and that Mr. La is not an owner, has never been a manager, and only works in the kitchen. According to Ms. Longtin, C.V. was Olympic's manager until she left in November, 2016 to have a baby. Since then, Ms. Longtin has taken over most management functions, including scheduling staff, dealing with food suppliers, supervising staff, and making decisions about hiring/firing staff and setting salaries.

43However, Ms. Longtin confirmed that Mr. La has authority to write cheques on the Olympic business bank account, and sometimes deals directly with suppliers and pays them by cheque.

44Taking all of the information into account, we find that Mr. La was involved in the management of Olympic – he dealt with the accountant on payroll issues, he paid wages in cash to the employees, he could sign cheques on Olympic's business account, and he dealt with suppliers. As was pointed out in the hearing, no other Olympic employee could do those things.

45Mr. La may not have been carrying out all management functions and it appears that his mother managed some areas of the business. However, the relevant condition states that "Thanh La shall not have any involvement in the management of the licensed business…" We conclude that it is clear on the evidence presented that Mr. La was involved in the management of Olympic and condition # 3 attached to the Olympic liquor licence was thereby breached.

Issue #2: Did Ms. Longtin provide a false statement or false information in a transfer application and/or a renewal application relating to the Olympic liquor licence?

46We find that Ms. Longtin did not provide a false statement or false information on either her transfer application, or on her renewal application.

47With respect to the transfer application, in August 19, 2015, Ms. Longtin applied to the AGCO to transfer the Olympic liquor licence from Olympic's previous owner to her company. In that application she was asked, "Who will manage the licensed premises?" The application form allows for two answers, either "self" or "other person." Ms. Longtin answered "self".

48The transfer application was signed on August, 2015, approximately one year before Mr. LeBlanc did his investigation which revealed that Mr. La was involved in the management of Olympic. We do not know when Mr. La took on those responsibilities. It may be that Ms. Longtin intended to manage the premises at the time she signed the application and Mr. La's involvement started later or increased gradually. The available evidence does not allow us to conclude that Ms. Longtin was knowingly untruthful when she said in August, 2015, that she will manage the premises.

49With respect to the renewal application, Ms. Longtin completed an application to renew Olympic's liquor licence on June 10, 2016. In that application, Ms. Longtin was asked, "Who will manage the day to day operation of the liquor business at the establishment?" She answered "self". At this point, Ms. Longtin had been operating the Olympic restaurant for at least several months.

50Shortly after the renewal application was received and granted, Ms. Longtin's company applied for the teletheatre licence. That triggered Det. LeBlanc's inquiries which revealed Mr. La's involvement in the management of Olympic.

51Much of the available evidence concerning the organization and management of the Olympic business was provided by Ms. Longtin who testified that she supervises staff (albeit from her primary place of work at the BT restaurant), hires, trains, fires and schedules staff, plans for and purchases food supplies. She stated that she is present at the Olympic restaurant each morning to ensure food is ready for the day, and again each evening to count the receipts, check on supplies, and make sure that the washroom and kitchen have been properly cleaned.

52Ms. Longtin did acknowledge that Mr. La had signing authority on the Olympic business bank account, dealt with the accountant regarding wages, paid staff wages, and wrote checks to pay suppliers and we have concluded that Mr. La was involved in management of the Olympic.

53However, although Mr. La was involved in management, the available evidence indicates that Ms. Longtin was the primary manager, was on-site each day (although briefly), and supervised the operation and its staff, including her son.

54Ms. Longtin was asked who will manage the day to day operation of the liquor business at the establishment and she answered "self". On the basis of the evidence presented and summarized above, we cannot conclude that Ms. Longtin knowingly answered that question falsely. Her answer seems to be substantially correct in the sense that she was the owner of the business, supervised all of its staff on a day to day basis, and ultimate decision-making authority rested with her.

Issue # 3: Was a condition of the BT restaurant breached as result of Mr. La's failure to notify the Registrar of charges laid against him?

55The liquor licence issued to Ms. Longtin in respect of the BT restaurant included a condition requiring Thanh La "...to inform the Registrar of any further charges, criminal or provincial, within five (5) days of being served with those charges."

56In early 2014, Mr. La was charged with Criminal Code offences which were withdrawn in 2015. Those charges were not reported to the Registrar and we therefore conclude that the above condition was breached.

57Ms. Longtin's representative argued that it was impossible for Ms. Longtin to comply with that condition, and that the condition was unfair and unconscionable. For the reasons set out below, we conclude that compliance with the condition was not impossible, and that the condition not unfair or unconscionable.

58On October 22, 2008, Ms. Longtin and her son in partnership, applied to the AGCO for a liquor licence in respect of the BT restaurant.

59In that application, Mr. La admitted to a 2003 charge of assault which resulted in a conviction and outstanding charges for growing marijuana.

60On April 21, 2009, the Registrar of the AGCO issued a Notice of Proposal to refuse the application on the basis that Mr. La's past/present conduct afforded reasonable grounds for belief that the business will not be carried on in accordance with the law and with integrity and honesty.

61Mr. La and Ms. Longtin asked for a hearing before a Board of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission. A hearing was held and both Mr. La and Ms. Longtin were represented by David Wilson, a lawyer.

62The Board issued a decision on March 8, 2010 which indicates that the matter was resolved when Ms. Longtin and Mr. La consented to conditions attached to BT restaurant's liquor licence. Both Mr. La and Ms. Longtin signed a written consent on February 11, 2010.

63The conditions restricted Mr. La's involvement in the BT restaurant to working in the kitchen and also required that:

"Thanh La shall inform the Registrar of any further charges, criminal or provincial, within five (5) days of being served with those charges."

64A liquor licence was issued with the consent conditions on July 22, 2010.

65In November 2012, an AGCO inspector received information that Mr. La had several Highway Traffic Act ("HTA") convictions and his driver's licence was under suspension for unpaid fines.

66As a result, on May 28, 2013, the AGCO sent a letter to Ms. Longtin stating that the above condition had been apparently breached. The letter pointed out that Mr. La had been charged with 5 HTA offences since the liquor licence was issued and none were reported to the Registrar. Ms. Longtin was asked to respond.

67Ms. Longtin did not respond and on July 12, 2013, the AGCO sent a warning letter informing Ms. Longtin that another violation may result in further action including a Notice of Proposal to suspend, revoke or impose a monetary penalty.

68Soon after getting that warning, on August 2, 2013, Ms. Longtin signed an Application for Removal or Change of Conditions in which she requested the removal of most of the conditions on the BT restaurant relating to Mr. La. Ms. Longtin's reason for that request was:

"Thanh La does not work at the Binthanh Restaurant and has not worked there since 2010. Binh Longtin does not keep track of Thanh La thus she is unable to inform the Registrar of any criminal or provincial charge."

69Shortly afterwards, the AGCO returned the application to Ms. Longtin and informed her that due to changes in the Act, the authority to process such applications had been transferred to the Licence Appeal Tribunal. Ms. Longtin was told that she must apply to that Tribunal to remove the conditions, and she was given the Tribunal's website address and telephone number.

70Ms. Longtin took no further action to remove the conditions and they are still attached to the BT restaurant licence.

71As stated above, Mr. La was charged with offences under the Criminal Code in 2014. Although the charges were withdrawn in 2015, Mr. La did not report those charges to the Registrar and the condition on the BT liquor licence requiring Mr. La to report charges to the Registrar was breached.

72Ms. Longtin's representative argued that it was impossible for Ms. Longtin to comply with that condition because it required Mr. La to report his charges to the Registrar. Ms. Longtin's licence was thus dependant on her son's truthful reporting to the Registrar. Mr. La was initially an employee of the BT restaurant but left in 2010. According to Ms. Longtin, she rarely or never saw him until the beginning of 2015. According to Ms. Longtin, she would not know of Mr. La's charges unless Mr. La saw fit to tell her about them.

73Ms. Longtin's representative also argued that the condition was unconscionable because of the "power asymmetry" that allegedly existed between her and the AGCO when Ms. Longtin was applying for the BT restaurant liquor licence, mainly due to her lack of facility with the English language. He argued that both Ms. Longtin and Mr. La should have had independent representation in their dealings with the AGCO and this condition was unfairly imposed and unconscionable.

74We find that the condition was not unfairly imposed, not unconscionable and not impossible to meet.

75It is important to note that both Ms. Longtin and Mr. La were partners in their application for the BT restaurant licence and, when the Registrar proposed to refuse the application, they both appealed that proposal to the AGCO.

76They were both represented by the same counsel at the hearing. Presumably they were both advised by their counsel, and they both consented to the granting of a liquor licence with conditions to Ms. Longtin as a sole proprietor, and Mr. La as an employee.

77With that context, it understandable that a condition was attached that required Mr. La to report his charges. Apparently, at that time, all parties regarded the conditions as realistic and appropriate. We heard evidence that Mr. La speaks English with no difficulty and on occasion translated for his mother. Given that both Mr. La and Ms. Longtin were represented by counsel, we find no evidence that the conditions to which they consented were unconscionable.

78Undoubtedly, once Mr. La left the BT restaurant sometime in 2010, the condition became problematic. The condition appears to have been agreed to under the assumption that Mr. La would be an employee and, since it was his mother's business, he would be motivated to comply with it.

79That assumption proved to be incorrect. However, if Ms. Longtin felt that circumstances had changed in a way that made the condition no longer viable, it was Ms. Longtin's responsibility to apply to the appropriate agency for a change. Although she apparently had little or no contact with her son from sometime in 2010 to early 2015, she took no steps to remove the conditions until August, 2013 after she was warned about non-compliance. At that point, she applied to the AGCO for removal of the conditions. After the AGCO informed her that the application must be submitted to the Licence Appeal Tribunal, she took no further steps and, as a result, the conditions to which she and Mr. La consented in 2010 are still attached to the BT restaurant liquor licence.

80The AGCO cannot be expected to ignore conditions that a licence holder says are now inappropriate. It is the licence holder's responsibility to make an application to change conditions, and follow through with that application, when a condition is felt to be no longer suitable. Until that application is made and the conditions are changed or removed, the conditions remain in force. In this case, the condition required that Mr. La report his charges. He failed to do so and the condition was thereby breached.

Issue # 4: Do the facts found in connection with the above afford reasonable grounds for belief that Ms. Longtin will not carry on business in accordance with the law and with integrity and honesty?

81According to the Court of Appeal in Registrar, Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario v. 751809 Ontario Inc. operating as Famous Flesh Gordon’s, 2013 ONCA 157, once the relevant facts are determined on a balance of probabilities, the issue is whether those facts afford reasonable grounds for belief that the business will not be carried on in accordance with the law and with integrity and honesty.

82The "reasonable grounds to believe" standard requires something more than mere suspicion but less than proof on a balance of probabilities. In other words, the Registrar does not have to show that the past/present conduct of a licensee make it more likely than not that they will not carry on business as required. The Registrar need only show that there are reasonable grounds for belief that their business will not be carried on in accordance with the law and with integrity and honesty.

83Keeping that standard in mind, we have found that one condition on each licence was breached but that Ms. Longtin did not knowingly provide false information to the Registrar in her applications. The question is, does Ms. Longtin's conduct in connection with those two breaches afford reasonable grounds for belief that she will not carry on the business of the two restaurants in accordance with the law and with integrity and honesty? We have concluded that it does not.

84With respect to the BT restaurant, the breach was Mr. La's failure to report his 2014 criminal charges to the Registrar. Ms. Longtin and her son both agreed to conditions, one of which required him to disclose any charges. The condition was unusual because complying with the condition required compliance from Mr. La who was not a licence holder and, from 2010 onwards, not an employee. He failed to report his HTA charges resulting in a breach of the licence conditions, after which the Registrar issued a letter of warning to Ms. Longtin, the licence holder.

85After being warned, Ms. Longtin took a step to removing the conditions, and then failed to follow through. As a result, the condition remained in force and was breached again when her son failed to report his 2014 charges.

86Clearly, Ms. Longtin should have followed through with her application to remove the conditions. That failure may reflect a lack of ability, or perhaps insufficient focus or motivation, to fully comply with that condition. However, in our view that failure does not reflect a defect of integrity or a lack of honesty.

87With respect to the Olympic condition breach, Ms. Longtin agreed to licence conditions restricting her son's involvement to working in the kitchen only. The facts established that Ms. Longtin permitted, or perhaps did not stop, her son from becoming involved in management.

88These circumstances suggest that Ms. Longtin lacked the willingness, or ability, to fully comply with the conditions on her licence. However, keeping in mind the standard set out in Flesh Gordon, we conclude that Ms. Longtin's past conduct in that regard does not afford reasonable grounds for belief that the businesses will not be carried on in accordance with the law and with integrity and honesty for the following reasons:

• Although one condition on the BT and Olympic liquor licences was breached, it appears that all of the other conditions restricting Mr. La's involvement were met.
• The BT Restaurant has been in operation since 2010 and the Olympic restaurant since 2015. No other infractions of the Act or regulations were brought to our attention.
• There is no evidence that Ms. Longtin engaged in fraud, theft, dishonest business practices, or any activity that would suggest a lack of integrity of honesty. Although Det. LeBlanc mentioned that a police report stated that her name, along with another, was on a lease of premises that her son was thought to be using as a grow-operation, we accept Ms. Longtin's testimony that she had no knowledge of that lease.

Issue # 5: What consequences should flow from the above findings?

89In summary, we have found that one of the conditions attached to each of the liquor licences of the two restaurants was breached but that Ms. Longtin did not knowingly provide false or misleading information on her applications to the Registrar. We also conclude that the two breaches do not afford reasonable grounds for belief that Ms. Longtin will not carry on business in accordance with the law and with integrity and honesty.

90Having concluded that one condition on each liquor licence has been breached, the remaining issue is what consequences should flow from this. The parties requested the opportunity to make separate submissions as to sanctions after our findings on the issues were released. Accordingly, we order as follows:

Order

91Within ten days from the date of the release of this decision, the Registrar may make written submissions as to the sanction that Ms. Longtin should face as a result of the breaches of conditions of her liquor licences.

92Within seven days of receipt of the Registrar's submissions, or within seventeen days of release of this Order if the Registrar declines to make submissions, Ms. Longtin may make written submissions as to the sanction she should face as a result of the breaches of conditions of her liquor licences.

LICENCE APPEAL TRIBUNAL

Laurie Sanford, Vice-Chair

Stephen Scharbach, Member

Released: January 18, 2018