DECISION AND ORDER
Date: 2019-07-26 Tribunal File Number: 12067/LLA
Appeal from the Notice of Proposal to Review the Application for Licence issued by the Registrar, under s. 8(4) of the Liquor Licence Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. L.19.
Between:
Mordecai Inc., operating or intending to o/a Bar Mordecai Appellant
and
Registrar Respondent
and
Chris Landry Objector
Adjudicator: Zahra Dhanani
Appearances: For the Appellant: Jerry Levitan, Counsel For the Respondent: Jordan Stewart, Counsel
Place and Date of Hearing: Toronto June 28, 2019
REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDER
OVERVIEW
1The appellant applied for a liquor licence pursuant to s. 6(1) of the Liquor Licence Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. L.19 (the “Act”). The Registrar gave notice of the application and requested written submissions from the residents of the municipality as to whether the issuance of the licence is in the public interest having regard to the needs and wishes of the residents.
2Chris Landry (the objector), a resident living near the appellant’s establishment, objected to the appellant being issued the licence, as did a Toronto City Councillor, Ana Bailao. A Notice of Proposal to Review Application for Licence of the Registrar of Alcohol, Cannabis and Gaming (“NOP”) under the Act was issued by the Registrar. The appellant appealed the Registrar’s NOP to this Tribunal.
3The Tribunal held a case conference in this matter on May 30, 2019. The city councillor did not attend and did not provide any materials or communications after she submitted her complaint. The objector attended at the case conference and there was no resolution at that time and so the objector was added as a party, which was done in an order of the same date.
4The objector emailed the Tribunal before the hearing dates stating that he no longer wished to be a party in this proceeding but would just like to give evidence. The hearing proceeded in order to clarify what the objector meant by this.
5Neither the objector nor the city councillor attended the hearing. The city councillor was not expected as there had been no communications from her throughout the process. The Tribunal and the appellant waited for the objector for two hours. He was called and emailed by the respondent and by the Tribunal’s case management officer.
6The appellant attended at the hearing with counsel and four witnesses who were ready and prepared to proceed with the hearing. The applicant disclosed 140 signatures in support of their application for a liquor licence and several letters of support from local not-for-profit organizations.
7The appellant submitted that it is the objector’s obligation to prove that the licence should be denied because it is not in the public interest having regard to the needs and wishes of the residents, otherwise the appellant has a statutory right to get a licence if they meet the criteria.
8The Registrar stated that the appellant qualified for a licence and the only thing that was blocking the issuance of the licence was the resident’s objection. The Registrar had no position on the hearing but did confirm that if the objector abandons their claim before the appeal, the Registrar usually issues the licence.
9The appellant submitted that because the objectors did not attend at the hearing, the Tribunal should order that the Registrar issue the licence.
10Another email was sent by the objector stating that he no longer wanted to be a part of this proceeding.
11I find that the appellant qualifies for a licence as the objectors did not attend at the hearing to make their case. As the Registrar had submitted in the event that the objector abandons their claim before the appeal they would issue the licence, I find here also that the objector has abandoned their claim.
ORDER
12Accordingly, I order that the Registrar issue a liquor licence to the appellant.
LICENCE APPEAL TRIBUNAL
Zahra Dhanani, Member
Released: July 26, 2019