Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 13347/LLCA

In the matter of an appeal from a Notice of Proposal to Review an Application for a Liquor Licence under the Liquor Licence Control Act, 2019, S.O. 2019, c. 15, Sched. 22.

Between:

7-Eleven Canada Inc. o/a 7-Eleven 1181 Western Road, London

Appellant

and

Registrar under the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario Act, 2019

Respondent

-and-

David Heap and Jeff Robinson

Objectors/Added Parties

DECISION

ADJUDICATOR:

Colin Osterberg, Vice Chair

APPEARANCES:

For the Appellant:

Will Shaw and Jane Mayfield, Counsel

For the Respondent: Added Parties:

Rena Khan, Counsel David Heap and Jeff Robinson

Heard by Videoconference: April 12, 13 and 24, June 14 and 27

OVERVIEW

17-Eleven Canada Inc. operating as or intending to operate as 7-Eleven, 1181 Western Road, London (the “appellant”) applied for a licence to sell alcoholic beverages pursuant to s. 3 of the Liquor Licence and Control Act, 2019, S.O. 2019 c. C.15, Sched. 22 (the “Act”). The liquor licence, if issued, would apply to a portion of the appellant’s convenience store located at 1181 Western Road in London (the “Premises”), which it intends to operate as a restaurant with a seating capacity of 10 persons.

2The Registrar under the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario Act, 2019 (the “Registrar”) received objections to the application from 34 individuals and issued a Notice of Proposal to Review an Application for Licence (“NOP”). The appellant appeals the NOP to the Tribunal. Two of the objectors, David Heap and Jeff Robinson were added as parties to the appeal by order of the Tribunal dated February 16, 2022.

3A hearing before the Tribunal took place on 5 days between April 12, 2023 and June 27, 2023.

4The Added Parties raise a number of concerns with respect to the issuance of a liquor licence at the Premises.

5They allege that the sale of alcohol at the Premises will have a negative effect on students at Western University (“Western”). In particular, they say that the sale of alcohol at the Premises may result in an increase in human trafficking in the area, increased sexual violence on campus, increased consumption of alcohol by students at Western, increased drinking and driving involving students, and increased danger to students and drivers using the intersection where the Premises are located.

6The Added Parties also allege that licensing the Premises will have a negative impact on neighboring businesses due to increased violence, crime, and vandalism. Neighboring businesses will also be impacted, they say, due to the inadequate parking in the lot they share with the Premises. They argue that there will be an increase in use of the parking lot at the Premises if a licence is granted.

7Finally, the Added Parties say that local residents are concerned about alcohol being served at the premises. There are elementary schools and high schools in the area whose students frequent the Premises and the Added Parties say that allowing alcohol to be served there may pose a danger to those students either because of the persons who might attend to purchase alcohol or because underage drinking may be encouraged.

8The added parties acknowledge that most, if not all, of their concerns involve existing problems but say that granting a licence to the appellant would increase those problems given the close proximity of the Premises to the Western campus and several student residences.

ISSUES

9The issue(s) in dispute is/are:

i. whether the added parties have established, on a balance of probabilities, that the issuance of a licence to operate a liquor consumption premises to the appellant 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;

ii. whether, in the circumstances of this case, conditions should be attached to the licence, if one is granted.

RESULT

10I find that the added parties failed to establish, on a balance of probabilities, that the issuance of a liquor 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. I order the Registrar to issue a licence to the appellant for the Premises.

11I decline to order that conditions be attached to the licence.

ANALYSIS

The Premises

12The Premises are located near the intersection of Western Road and Sarnia Road in London. This is a location that is directly across Western Road from the Western Campus and is near several student residences.

13The Premises are currently operated as a convenience store and, if a licence is granted, the store will be renovated to include a restaurant area separated from the shopping area by a three-foot wall with seating for ten persons. The intent is to serve beer and wine in the restaurant area from 12 noon until 11:00 p.m. every day. Food and alcohol will be ordered at the front counter and delivered to customers at their seats for consumption on the Premises.

14The appellant called three witnesses to give evidence at the hearing. Victor Vrsnik is the appellant’s senior manager of corporate affairs and business development. He described the appellant’s operational procedures and policies to include the requirement that identification be produced by customers purchasing alcohol who appear to be under 30 years old, training staff on the proper procedure to follow when serving alcohol, violence and robbery prevention, and hours of operations. Staff will also have to be certified by Smart Serve, the provincially run certification program for anyone who is employed selling alcohol.

15Mr. Vrsnik testified that a customer who purchases alcohol will present their identification at the counter for verification, then the staff member will bring the drink to the customer at their table in the licenced area. The low wall and bright lighting in the store are intended to allow staff to monitor activity in the licensed area and for the entire store to be visible from the street at night.

16Staff training includes sections on verifying identification, refusing the sale of alcohol, preventing customers from becoming intoxicated at the Premises, ensuring intoxicated customers are not driving, protection of public safety, and protecting the appellant’s reputation.

17Employees are required to take this program when they start their employment and every year after that. There is a competency test at the end of the training and employees are required to score 100% on the test. All stores are audited by a third-party mystery shopper who is young and goes in trying to purchase restricted items such as cigarettes or lottery tickets every four months and infractions can result in disciplinary action including termination.

18Gwendolyn Jacquot is the appellant’s asset protection manager for Canada whose job involves providing for the safety of the store, its employees, and its customers. Ms. Jacquot described elements of the appellant’s safety measures including the placement of security cameras, ensuring effective sight lines for all parts of the store from inside and outside, ensuring proper training for handling dangerous situations like robberies or violent customers, and dealing with serious incident reports when they arise.

19Ms. Jacquot testified that employees rarely work alone and when they do, safety measures include low cash-on-hand limits, a personal safety device which is connected to a security provider 24 hours a day, maintenance of sight lines to the interior of the store, and violence prevention training. Formal risk assessments are done for every location and safety plans are developed based on individual store circumstances and requirements.

20Ms. Jacquot testified that the Premises is not considered a high-risk location. In terms of limiting concerns arising out of the potential issuance of a liquor licence, the appellant notes its limited capacity, fishbowl effect, bright lighting, and security cameras, as well as the training that all staff are required to undertake. She says that she has worked in asset protection for 20 years and has never encountered an incident involving human trafficking. However, she said that times change and, if it came to her attention that this was a problem that needed to be addressed, then she would address that and work with the appropriate authorities to deal with the issue.

21Karen Erikson is the appellant’s area leader dealing with the Premises. She is responsible for 12 locations around southwestern Ontario and her duties include ensuring that the appellant’s policies and procedures are followed. Ms. Erikson inspects the Premises twice per month and does regular audits which take as long as a full day to complete. She testified that the typical customer at this location is a university student or employee at the university. There are very few customers who are elementary or high school students.

22Ms. Erikson testified that there are generally two staff members working in the store with extra staff brought in during events. She reiterated the safety policies and procedures discussed by the other two witnesses called by the appellant. She testified that this store is not known for having problems with violence, unruly customers or anything that might cause her concern with respect to the application for a liquor licence.

The liquor licence and the public interest

23Section 3(6) of the Act provides that the Registrar shall not issue a licence to operate a liquor consumption premises or a licence of another prescribed category or prescribed class within a category if issuing 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 to be licensed are located.

24The Act requires the Registrar to give notice of a liquor licence application to the residents of the municipality in which the premises are located. If the Registrar receives written objections, it may issue a proposal to review the application and the applicant may then request a hearing by the Tribunal to determine whether the licence should be issued and whether conditions should be attached. After the hearing, the Tribunal may direct the Registrar to issue the licence or to refuse to issue the licence. If the Tribunal directs that a licence be issued, it may impose any condition on the licence that it considers proper to give effect to the purposes of the Act.

25The onus is on the added parties to prove on a balance of probabilities that it 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, to grant a licence to the appellant.

26The good faith concerns of the residents in the immediate area of the premises at issue who are the most affected by the proposed licence will be given greatest consideration as compared to those who are less directly affected. In determining whether the needs and wishes of the residents are presented on a good faith basis, the Tribunal will look at the totality of the evidence to determine if the subjective concerns and fears of the residents are supported on a valid, objective basis.

27In making its decision, the Tribunal is required to balance the appellant’s qualified right to a licence against the needs and wishes of the residents of the municipality.

The Impact at Western

Human Trafficking

28The Added Parties argue that granting the appellant a liquor licence at this specific location is likely to increase the incidence of human trafficking in London and, in particular, involving students at Western.

29In support of that claim, the Added Parties introduced the evidence of two experts in the area of human trafficking: Wendy Goldsmith and Caroline Pugh-Roberts.

30Wendy Goldsmith has a Master’s Degree in Social Work and is an advocate counsellor at the London Abused Women’s Centre. She regularly works with women and girls who have experienced domestic violence, human trafficking, and workplace harassment, providing counselling, education, and awareness. Ms. Goldsmith is the Centre’s coordinator of anti-human trafficking initiatives and delivers human trafficking education and training in London and Middlesex. Ms. Goldsmith has worked as an educator, counsellor, and advocate for victims of violence against women for over 35 years in London through a variety of positions.

31Ms. Goldsmith was qualified to give expert opinion evidence on the subject of human trafficking education, prevention, and intervention, as well as the impact the subject premises may have on those issues should it be granted a liquor licence.

32Caroline Pugh-Roberts was also qualified to give expert opinion evidence on the subject of human trafficking education prevention and intervention. Ms. Pugh-Roberts has significant experience working with victims of human trafficking and at-risk women in London. She has worked as an educator and advocate for a number of organizations who support victims of human trafficking and sexual violence including My Sister’s Place, Middlesex Health Community Emergency Volunteer Unit, Salvation Army Correctional & Justice Services, Human Trafficking Law Enforcement, and others. She has been a guest speaker at local schools and has provided training for various police services.

33Ms. Pugh-Roberts was qualified to give expert evidence on the subject of human trafficking education, prevention and intervention and the impact the subject premises may have on those issues should it be granted a liquor licence.

34Both Ms. Goldsmith and Ms. Pugh-Roberts testified that human trafficking is a significant problem in London. Both describe the students at Western to be a vulnerable population and expressed concern that the proximity of the Premises to several student residences in the area might make the Premises an attractive location to traffickers.

35Ms. Goldsmith and Ms. Pugh-Roberts said that traffickers commonly lure victims into trafficking by befriending them, buying them gifts, paying their debts, and pretending to be their boyfriend – a technique they described as becoming their “sugar daddy”. They are gradually forced into the sex trade by various means. The experts testified that Western women are young, living on their own for the first time, and often do not have extensive support-systems, making them vulnerable to traffickers.

36Ms. Goldsmith and Ms. Pugh-Roberts say that luring can occur in a number of different locations including bars, restaurants, group homes, and on-line. Both expressed concern that the Premises is close to student residences and that staff at the Premises will not be properly trained on how to recognize and intervene in a human trafficking situation.

37Both Ms. Goldsmith and Ms. Pugh-Roberts testified that Western has a significant problem with human trafficking already. Ms. Pugh-Roberts described Western students that she knows who have been lured on-line.

38In my view, the evidence given by Ms. Goldsmith and Ms. Pugh-Roberts does not provide the Tribunal with significant assistance in this appeal. While I accept the sincerity of their concerns based on their experience dealing with victims of human trafficking, their evidence with respect to the likelihood that granting a licence to the Premises might result in an increase in the incidence of human trafficking was largely speculative.

39Neither witness presented any objective evidence with respect to the incidence of human trafficking at locations similar to the Premises or even with respect to locations that are near colleges and universities. These witnesses did not present studies of human trafficking at campuses and the impact of adding a licenced restaurant nearby might have on this issue. There was no analysis of the actual prevalence of trafficking at Western or the methods used to lure those victims other than to say that some of the victims were lured on-line.

40Moreover, although both Ms. Goldsmith and Ms. Pugh-Roberts testified that they believed that the staff at the Premises would be inadequately trained in dealing with the issue of human trafficking, both agreed that they had only briefly reviewed the appellant’s training materials and could not say whether the training to be provided by the appellant would be any less thorough than is typical in a licenced establishment of its nature. Ms. Pugh-Roberts testified that some bars conduct training specific to human trafficking but many, including the licenced locations on the Western campus, do not and that there is no legal requirement that licensed establishments provide that type of training.

41Ms. Goldsmith and Ms. Pugh-Roberts both testified that they had no evidence that human trafficking had ever occurred at the Premises or at any other 7-Eleven locations, or is generally a concern with respect to convenience stores or small restaurants, whether licensed or unlicensed. They agreed that the appellant would be required to comply with the law with respect to the service of alcohol.

42I also find that the concerns expressed by Ms. Goldsmith and Ms. Pugh-Roberts are concerns related generally to the sale of alcohol and the provincial government’s policy of allowing liquor to be sold in Ontario. Their concerns could be applied to the sale of alcohol anywhere and their specific concerns related to the proximity of the Premises to Western were not supported by objective evidence. They both agreed that their concerns in this regard were based, at least in part, on speculation.

43The Tribunal has consistently held that the public interest provision in the Act should be read such that the Tribunal’s enquiry is to be focussed on the public interest as it relates to the impact of the licence on the residents of the local municipality, with concerns of the residents in the immediate area of the premises at issue who are the most affected by the proposed licence given greatest consideration as compared to those who are less directly affected. As the Tribunal stated in Powerhouse Corporation v. Registrar of Alcohol, Gaming and Racing, 2018 CanLii 79631 (ON LAT) para. 27:

The use of the words “public interest” in this subsection does not give us a mandate to embark on a far-reaching consideration of the public interest as a general concept.

44On appeal, the Divisional Court in Powerhouse Corporation v. Registrar of Alcohol, Gaming and Racing, 2021 ONSC 4116 (“Powerhouse Corporation”) stated at para. XX that:

It is evident that the full definition of “public interest” in s. 6(2)(h) of the Act represents a legislative intent to narrow the interpretation of those words in that provision…The legislature must be presumed to have made a deliberate choice to circumscribe the latitude of “public interest” in s. 6(2)(h) by adding the wording that immediately focuses attention on the “needs and wishes of the residents of the municipality in which the premises are located.”

45Moreover, the experts’ concerns with respect to human trafficking at Western are long-standing and unrelated to the licensing of the Premises. There was no evidence that satisfies me that the issuance of a licence to the Premises would likely increase the risk of this issue arising. The experts both say that traffickers engage in their activities in all sorts of locations, from bars to group homes, and that when one opportunity closes, they simply move on and look for another opportunity. There was no evidence that supports the allegation that this location increases the risk over other locations where alcohol is served in the area. There was no evidence presented which shows that this is a particular issue for convenience stores where alcohol is served or in small restaurants like this proposes to be, whether they are close to a university or not.

Other impacts at Western

46Dr. Treena Orchard is an Associate Professor at the Faculty of Health Studies at Western. She is an anthropologist with expertise in human sexuality and sexual violence and was qualified as an expert witness in the areas of sexuality, gender, health, and addictions, able to give opinion evidence with respect to the impact of the licensing of the subject location on the surrounding community within those areas of expertise.

47Both Dr. Orchard and Ms. Goldsmith testified that Western is known as a “party school”. They say that parties, and drinking, are a significant part of the social life at Western and the fraternities in the area are known spaces where alcohol is in abundance and are known to be places where sexual violence is common. They said that conduct such as drugging women for the purpose of sexually assaulting them is difficult to regulate in fraternity houses and they believe it is a good idea to limit nearby access to alcohol.

48Dr. Orchard and Ms. Goldsmith said that many studies have described the link between alcohol use and male violence against women. They point out that, given Western’s reputation, adding a licensed establishment in the area adds to the vulnerability of young women to sexual predators. They note the difficult problem Western has had with assaults on and off campus are sometimes related to alcohol. They point out that in 2021 there were 30 or more complaints made and the President of the university commented publicly.

49Dr. Orchard is concerned that licensing the Premises is a problem given its proximity to the student residences and will contribute to students’ feelings that the area is unsafe. She notes that during Orientation week, there are huge drinking events in various neighbourhoods in London which get out of control and require police intervention. Although the neighbourhoods she is referring to are a long distance from this location, she cites this as an example of what can happen.

50In my view, while there is no doubt that Dr. Orchard and Ms. Goldsmith have concerns, I am not satisfied that there is evidence that granting a licence at the Premises would have any significant impact on the issues they advanced. There was no scientific, statistical, or other objective basis, presented for the allegation that licensing the Premises would create further issues.

51The examples of student behaviour which were cited by Dr. Orchard and Ms. Goldsmith occurred in locations and circumstances such as fraternities, bars, and private parties, and not in small, licensed restaurants like the Premises. There was no evidence that the type of establishment which the appellant proposes to operate at the Premises are likely to cause or significantly contribute to the types of issues about which Dr. Orchard and Ms. Goldsmith expressed concerns.

52In my view, simply saying that any additional locations where alcohol can be purchased by students is a bad idea is not what the legislation is referring to when it provides for the refusal of a licence where the issuance of one is contrary to the public interest. Rather, this concern speaks to the kind of far-reaching public interest concerns which the Tribunal and Divisional Court in Powerhouse Corporation stated were beyond the mandate of the Tribunal.

53Chris Alleyne is employed at Western as its Associate Vice President of Housing and Ancillary Services. Included in his responsibilities are residence operations, food services and retail services. Those duties include responsibility for the liquor licence held by Western in respect to the licensed establishments on campus.

54Mr. Alleyne testified that there are four residences located within 150 meters of the Premises, which house about 2400 students. He says that students who live in residence are usually in their first year and 92% are underage for alcohol consumption when they arrive.

55According to Mr. Alleyne, alcohol is a factor in many of the negative incidents which occur at the residences. The residences have protocols in place with respect to students who over-consume as well as a code of conduct to try to ensure that no large quantities of alcohol enter the residences. Campus bars are closed during orientation week, but despite that many incidents involving alcohol occur during that week.

56Western has taken a number of measures to try and prevent underage drinking on campus including posting security in the campus bars and prohibiting alcohol in the stands at sporting events.

57Mr. Alleyne testified he reviewed the appellant’s plan for the Premises and is concerned that the alcohol consumption area takes up a lot of the store. He is concerned that the staff at the Premises would have difficulty monitoring the drinking activity or preventing underage persons from being given alcohol by a friend. He also thought training on preventing underage drinking was deficient.

58Mr. Alleyne spent considerable time during his testimony describing various problems Western has dealt with relating to its students over-consuming alcohol. Students returning to the residences intoxicated, missing classes, engaging in unsafe sexual practices, engaging in gender-based violence, being involved in accidents while crossing the busy nearby intersection, to name a few of the problems.

59Mr. Alleyne was also concerned that, as the Premises appear to stay open later than the bars located on campus, there might be a large rush of intoxicated students who go to the Premises for alcohol after the bars on campus close. The fact that the Premises only has a seating capacity of 10 did not alleviate Mr. Alleyne’s concern. In fact, this concern, in addition to being highly speculative, seems to have more to do with the conduct of the bars on campus over-serving students than it does the Premises.

60In my view, the concerns raised by the witnesses with respect to the effects on Western students of granting a liquor licence at the Premises relate to on-campus issues and not to the Premises. In fact, Western itself has a liquor licence and operates several licensed premises, with significantly higher capacities, under that licence.

61Further, I am satisfied that the appellant has policies and procedures in place which will mitigate many of the concerns expressed by the witnesses. The appellant presented extensive evidence with respect to its alcohol sales policies and, like every licensed establishment in Ontario, will be required to comply with the law with respect to the sale of alcohol at the Premises.

Impact on neighboring businesses and residents

62Several witnesses expressed concern that serving alcohol at the Premises will increase the incidences of intoxicated driving and will increase violence and vandalism in the immediate area. Jamil Barakat is the owner of a restaurant which is located in the same plaza as the Premises. He moved his business there from downtown because he had negative experiences with Western students’ disorderly behaviour, violence, and vandalism, which was occurring due to over-consumption of alcohol when his restaurant was downtown.

63Mr. Barakat is concerned that the granting of a licence at the Premises will result in problems like he was having downtown. He is opposed to selling alcohol anywhere on campus and generally believes that the sale of alcohol is a problem in society.

64Mohammed Hamou is an area resident. He has children who attend high school and elementary school in the area and he attends the Premises several times a week to purchase various items. Mr. Hamou is concerned that the intersection near the Premises is a very busy one with many students crossing the streets at various times. He believes that adding the use of alcohol at the intersection will make that intersection even more unsafe.

65Mr. Hamou is also concerned that his children will attend the Premises and that the sale of alcohol will create an atmosphere that he is not comfortable exposing them to. He is concerned that persons who are seeking alcohol will be more frequently in attendance at the Premises and believes that his children should not be exposed to them. He also concerned about people driving while intoxicated after attending the Premises and whether the Premises will be serving underage people alcohol.

66Altaf Jiwaji is the owner of a pharmacy located next to the Premises. Many of his clients are Western students. He is concerned about the proximity of the Premises to the Western residences and the increased access to alcohol those students will have. He is concerned that the appellant’s staff will not enforce the policies with respect to the service of alcohol. He is also concerned about the proximity of the Premises to the busy intersection.

67Rasha El-Sabaawi lives in a neighbourhood about 1.5 km away from the Premises. She drives by the Premises daily and her son attends Western. She has other children who attend Banting high school and Orchard Park elementary school.

68Ms. El-Sabaawi described the intersection where the Premises is located as being very busy with pedestrians and vehicles. She is concerned that accidents may occur if either a pedestrian or driver has been drinking at the Premises.

69Ms. El-Sabaawi is concerned that the age of the persons who will be serving alcohol will be quite young and that they may not have the training in the proper service of alcohol.

70Ms. El-Sabaawi is also concerned that her son, who is in high school, will be walking by the Premises, or attending a restaurant next door, and that he might run into someone who is intoxicated. She may refuse to allow her son to be near the Premises if a licence is granted.

71The concerns expressed by the neighboring business owners and residents, while clearly sincerely expressed, are largely speculative and are based on their general concern about the sale of alcohol rather than objective evidence of the impact the sale of alcohol at the Premises will have. There was no evidence that the appellant will not comply with the law or that unaccompanied children will be at risk should they enter the Premises. The appellant will be required to operate in accordance with the law, which includes not serving customers to intoxication and the evidence is that it has procedures and policies in place to do so.

72Samuel Trosow is an associate professor at Western and gave evidence at the hearing. Professor Trosow is also a City of London Councillor in Ward 6, the area encompassing the Western campus.

73Professor Trosow testified that the intersection of Western Road and Sarnia Road is known to be one of the most dangerous intersections in London. He passes through the intersection on a daily basis and confirms that it is very busy and very dangerous. Professor Trosow notes that the City has undertaken a traffic study of the intersection and has issued a report outlining the issues in the area.

74Professor Trosow said that his main concern with granting a liquor licence at the Premises is the issue of increased problems getting in and out of the parking lot at the Premises and how that will impact the intersection. He is also concerned about the lack of parking at the Premises. He assumes, without evidence, that licensing the Premises would increase the intensity of the use of the property.

75Although Professor Trosow raised issues with respect to the already dangerous nature of the intersection where the Premises are located and with respect to whether or not there is sufficient parking to accommodate increased attendance at the Premises, his concerns with respect to the impact of licensing the premises were unsupported by the evidence at the hearing. First, it is not clear that licensing the Premises will result in more vehicular traffic using the parking lot or attending the Premises. Second, the evidence at the hearing was that upwards of 10,000 students a day use that intersection as pedestrians, sometimes going to their residences in large numbers from the on-campus bars. It was not adequately explained how adding a 10-seat restaurant that serves alcohol in the way the appellant intends, would meaningfully impact those circumstances

Conclusions

76I am required to balance the needs and wishes of the residents with the appellant’s qualified right to a licence.

77I have considered the concerns expressed by the objectors and the witnesses at the hearing. I must not rely on speculation or unsupported concerns in reaching a conclusion and I may not make orders which rely on considerations beyond those required by the Act and applicable case law.

78I find that the added parties failed to establish that granting a liquor licence for the Premises 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. I order the Registrar to issue a licence to the appellant for the Premises.

Conditions

79The Added Parties ask the Tribunal to impose the following conditions if it determines that a licence should be issued.

1. Prohibiting alcohol service during the University’s orientation week and any other dates that the bars located on campus are closed;

2. Restricting alcohol service to the same hours as the bars on campus, which according to the Added Parties end at 10:00 p.m. on some days, 11:00 p.m. on Wednesday, and 8:00 p.m. on the weekend;

3. Requiring that the appellant have an additional employee at the entrance of the Premises as security; and

4. Requiring additional training and house policies for staff at the Premises regarding identifying signs of intoxication and third party sales, the prevention and intervention in dangerous situations for women and girls, and on a tracking system to classify customers and determine whether to deny service.

80In my view, the conditions requested by the added parties are not supported by the evidence at the hearing or my findings described above. There is insufficient evidence that licensing the Premises will have any significant impact on the conduct of students at Western as it relates to the use, or misuse, of alcohol. I note that there are no conditions on Western’s liquor licence requiring the sale of alcohol to be restricted on certain dates or limited to the times requested to apply to the Premises. The hours of the Western establishments are a matter of their own choice and to bind the appellant to those choices is not reasonable.

81I am also not satisfied that there should be a condition requiring specific security measures be taken at the Premises. As noted above, the appellant is required to comply with the law with respect to the sale of alcohol and has a plan for doing so.

82I also find that the additional training requested as a condition was not shown to be necessary at the hearing. There was no evidence of similar conditions being applied to other licensed establishments in London, including the liquor licence held by Western. In my view, holding the appellant to a higher standard would be arbitrary in the circumstances and inconsistent with its qualified right to the issuance of a liquor licence.

ORDER

83Having considered the evidence and submissions of the parties, I order the Registrar to issue a licence to the appellant for the Premise without conditions.