Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 14985/LLCA

An appeal under subsection 13(4) of the Liquor Licence and Control Act, 2019, S.O. 2019, c. 15, Sch. 22 (the “Act”), from the issuance of a Proposal to Suspend a Licence pursuant to s. 13(1) of the Act.

Between:

12403528 Canada Limited o/a J’TM Resto Bar

Appellant

and

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

Respondent

MOTION DECISION

VICE-CHAIR: Colin Osterberg

Representatives:

For the Appellant: No submissions requested or received

For the Respondent: Ashley An, Counsel

HEARD in writing

OVERVIEW

1May 25, 2023, the Registrar under the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario Act, 2019 (the “respondent”) issued a Notice of Proposal to Suspend a Licence, dated May 24, 2023, to 12403528 Canada Limited, operating as J’TM Resto Bar (the “appellant”). The notice proposed a suspension of 14 days and included reasons for the proposed suspension.

2The respondent brings this motion requesting a further case conference prior to the hearing which is scheduled to take place January 17, 2024. No submissions were requested from the appellant and it has not responded to the motion.

ISSUES

3The issue in dispute in this motion is:

i. whether the Tribunal should order that a further case conference be held before the hearing.

RESULT

4I find that the respondent has failed to demonstrate that a further case conference is necessary, and the motion is dismissed.

ANALYSIS

5Rule 14.2 of the Common Rules of Practice and Procedure (“Common Rules”) provides the Tribunal may direct the parties to participate in a case conference to consider certain enumerated matters.

6The respondent argues that it believes that a case conference will be beneficial for both parties and the Tribunal to ensure that the appellant, which is represented by its own directors who are not lawyers, understands the hearing process so that unnecessary delays may be avoided. The respondent also says that it wants to determine if the appellant has retained counsel since the respondent received some communications from a lawyer who said he had been contacted by the appellant.

7The appellant has not been requested to make submissions.

8A case conference was held on July 20, 2023 and was attended by the respondent’s counsel and three directors of the appellant corporation. At that time the parties, among other things, agreed to hearing dates.

9With respect to the respondent’s interest in determining whether the appellant is represented by counsel, that is not the purpose of a case conference. Rule 24.2 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Rules, 2023 provides that, if a party wishes to have a representative, the representative must file with the Tribunal a form for the declaration of a representative provided on the Tribunal’s website and serve a copy of the form on all other parties. No such form has been provided to the Tribunal by the appellant’s representative and based on the respondent’s current request, the respondent has not been advised otherwise. If the respondent would like to confirm whether the appellant is represented or not, then they can ask one of the appellant’s directors that question. A case conference is not required for this purpose.

10With respect to ensuring that the appellant understands the hearing process, there is no evidence before the Tribunal that the appellant does not have sufficient understanding. There is no indication in the Case Conference Report and Order relating to the case conference that took place on July 20, 2023 that the appellant’s directors did not understand the process and the Tribunal has received no communication from the appellant since then indicating that they need direction.

11There are resources available to the appellant on the Tribunal’s website should they have questions about the Tribunal’s procedure.

12If the respondent wishes to satisfy itself that the appellant understands the hearing procedure, it could talk to the appellant’s directors. A second case conference is not typically convened in order to find out the state of a party’s knowledge of hearing procedure. This is particularly so in circumstances where there is no indication that this is an issue of concern.

13In my view, ordering that a further case conference be held in the circumstances set out in the motion material would be an inefficient use of the Tribunal’s limited resources.

Conclusion

14I find that the respondent has failed to demonstrate that a further case conference is warranted.

ORDER

15The respondent’s motion for a further case conference is dismissed.