1000406437 Inc. o/a IDK Social Club v. Registrar, Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario Act, 2019, 2025 CanLII 31122

Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 16593/LLCA

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

1000406437 Inc. o/a IDK Social Club

Appellant

and

Registrar, Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario Act, 2019

Respondent

and

Michael Edmund Law

Added Party

AMENDED DECISION

ADJUDICATOR:

Rebecca Hines

APPEARANCES:

For the Appellant:

Taff Butters, Paralegal

For the Respondent:

Brian Haddad, Counsel

For the Added Party:

Michael Edmund Law, Self-represented

Heard by videoconference:

March 20, 2025

OVERVIEW

11000406437 Inc. o/a IDK Social Club (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 (“licence”), if issued, would apply to the indoor premises located at 172 Ossington Avenue, Toronto, Ontario (the “premises”). The appellant intends to operate a licensed business as a café during the day and a lounge in the evening.

2Anson Mo and Owen Gao, are the owners and directors of the appellant.

3The Registrar under the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario Act, 2019 (the “Registrar”) received 4 objections to the application from local residents of the municipality and issued a Notice of Proposal to Review an Application for Licence (“NOP”). The appellant requested a hearing to consider the NOP by the Tribunal (the “appeal”). One of the objectors, Michael Edmund Law (“Law”) was added as a party to the appeal by order of the Tribunal.

4The Registrar takes no position on the issuance of a licence and submits that if the Tribunal adds terms and conditions to the licence they must be related to the purpose of the Act and must be enforceable.

5The matter proceeded to a half-day hearing. Law testified on his own behalf. He also called Stephanie Horvath (“Horvath”), President of the Ossington Community Association as a witness. Owen Gao (“Gao”) testified on behalf of the appellant and the Registrar did not call any witnesses.

ISSUES

6The issues in dispute are:

i. Whether the added party has 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 is located?

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

RESULT

7I find that the added party has failed to establish, on a balance of probabilities, that the issuance of a licence 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 is located. I order the Registrar to issue a licence to the appellant. I am not satisfied that any terms and conditions should be attached to the licence.

THE LAW

The issuance of the licence and the public interest

8Section 3(6) of the Act provides that the Registrar shall not issue a licence to operate a liquor consumption premises 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.

9After 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.

10The 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.

11In 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.

12The onus is on the added party to prove on a balance of probabilities that it is not in the public interest to grant a licence to the appellant, having regard to the needs and wishes of the residents of the municipality in which the premises are located.

The premises and the application for a licence

13The premises is a two-storey building located at 172 Ossington Avenue, Toronto. The appellant’s business is intended to operate as a café during the day and a lounge at night with a focus on community, socializing and networking.

14The appellant intends to operate its café on the first floor between the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. and the lounge on the second floor between 6:00 p.m. to 2:00 a.m., with a capacity of 20 persons and 120 persons respectively.

15Law lives in the general neighbourhood of the appellant’s property.

Submissions and Evidence of the Added Party

16Law testified that he does not oppose granting the appellant a licence for the first floor of the premises, but that he contests granting the licence for the second floor, which will increase the size of the establishment to 3000 square feet. Law’s written statement expressed disappointment over the changing commercial landscape of the Ossington Avenue neighbourhood and submits that bars and nightclubs are replacing important businesses such as pharmacies, laundromats, grocery stores, art galleries, flower shops and cabinet makers. He asserts that the Ossington neighbourhood is similar to Kensington Market, in that it is a unique community, and that more licenced establishments will take away from its charm and the local residents’ and businesses’ enjoyment of it.

17The bulk of Law’s submissions and testimony focused on the City of Toronto’s Committee of Adjustment’s (“COA”) decision to grant the appellant an exemption from by-law 1172-2009 (the “local by-law”) so as to permit the appellant’s use of the second storey of the building. Law submits that the purpose of the local by-law was to restrict new bars and restaurants from opening in the area, in order to protect local businesses and residents. Law argues that the COA’s approval was without merit, and that it failed to consider the strength of the local by-law, and the interplay between the relationships of the residents of the Ossington area with the business community. Further, he argues that the COA’s decision will have a negative impact on his unique neighbourhood. Law then discussed four bars and restaurants (La Banane, Bar Shozan, Bellwoods Brewery, and Koukla) in the neighbourhood that were granted an exemption to use the second floor and provided reasons for why these businesses are different from the appellant’s proposed business.

18Law maintains that a two-storey 3000 square foot bar is not in the best interest of this community as a whole and requested that the Tribunal overturn the decision of the COA. Law also relies on various correspondence from members of the local community who opposed the rezoning of the property which was before the COA.

19Horvath testified that the Ossington neighbourhood is at maximum capacity to accommodate licensed establishments and expressed concern with issues such as pest control, garbage storage and collection, parking, noise, and transit accessibility, which have been rising concerns in the area since the pandemic. Further, Ossington Avenue features a variety of residential types including townhouses, semi-detached homes, and apartments above commercial spaces. Horvath argues that granting the appellant a licence to operate on the second floor will directly impact a large townhouse community directly across the street.

Submissions of the Appellant

20The appellant submits that Law has not met his onus in proving that granting the appellant’s licence is not in the public interest. Further, all the concerns raised by Law and the other residents are based on fear and speculation because they have encountered issues with other bars and nightclubs in the area.

21Gao testified that the appellant’s business is not going to be a traditional bar but a space to foster meaningful social interactions and networking. It intends to act as a lounge not a nightclub and he and his partner chose this location because they love it. He wants to become part of the Ossington community and collaborate with local art galleries to display artwork and host events. Moreover, he aims to participate in community association meetings and work with local residents and businesses to find solutions to problems. Gao indicated that they have kept an open-door policy with the local residents and have made themselves available to answer questions and address concerns and he will continue to do so.

22Gao stated that the appellant has an employee training plan in place to ensure alcohol is served responsibly in accordance with the Act. Their staff will be certified in Smart Serve, a responsible alcohol beverage training program, and will track alcohol consumption to ensure that patrons are not over served. They also have a security plan in place and employees will track capacity to prevent overcrowding, learn techniques to de-escalate conflict, ensure patrons are leaving the premises in an orderly fashion and engage and cooperate with law enforcement should there be any incidents.

ANALYSIS

23I find that Law has not met his onus in proving that it is not within the public interest to grant the appellant a licence for the following reasons.

24First, as highlighted above, much of Law’s evidence focused on his general disagreement with the COA’s decision to approve the rezoning of the appellant’s property. I find that the COA is its own quasi-judicial body, and this Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear an appeal or overturn any decisions rendered by it. My jurisdiction in this matter is limited to s. 26(3) of the Act and at the outset of the hearing, I informed the parties that my decision would be ordering the Registrar to do one of the following three things: 1) approve the licence; 2) deny the licence; or 3) issue the licence with terms and conditions. Consequently, I find the evidence regarding the COA’s approval of the rezoning, and the exception given to the other four establishments irrelevant to this analysis.

25Second, regarding the letters of objections of the residents in response to the application before the COA, I note that many expressed concerns about public intoxication, noise disturbance, littering and overcrowding issues. However, the appellant is required to comply with the law with respect to over-service of its patrons and prevent public intoxication. There was no evidence presented at the hearing to suggest that the appellant is likely to contravene the law. The fact that other licensed premises in the area may be behaving in an unsatisfactory manner does not lead to the conclusion that the appellant is likely to do the same.

26The same can be said with respect to noise and overcrowding. There is no evidence to support that the appellant’s premises will be allowed to become overcrowded or that it will be unreasonably loud, or that its presence will detract from the unique culture of the community. The appellant has expressed its interest in preserving the current nature of the community and I have no reason to find that its evidence in that regard was insincere or unreliable. I find that the concerns raised by the various residents are based on fear and speculation which is not objective evidence on which to deny a licence. I also note that none of the objections referred to above were filed in response to the review of this application. Of significance, three of the residents who filed objections in response to this application chose not to participate in the Tribunal’s process.

27Finally, I find the concerns raised by Law and Horvath to be heavily based on disagreements with the city over land planning issues. While I can appreciate that Law and Horvath want to preserve the unique culture of their community, I am not satisfied that granting the appellant a licence is not in the public interest. I will now address whether I find terms and conditions should be attached to the licence.

Terms and conditions

28Law argues that I should deny the appellant’s licence for the second storey of the building and suggested that the appellant run the café out of the second floor for a period of time and run the licenced establishment on the ground floor. Law also requested that if the appellant is granted a licence for the entire premises that it not be allowed to transfer the licence to any other owner.

29The Registrar opposed the above terms and conditions on the basis that they are not enforceable by the AGCO. The Registrar provided examples of the terms and conditions which it could enforce such as limiting the time for alcohol service but did not take a position on whether this should be a condition of the appellant’s licence. The Registrar argues that any terms and conditions ordered must be enforceable.

30The appellant opposed the terms and conditions and submits that there should be no terms and conditions attached to its licence because it has complied with all by-laws and regulations and will comply with them in the future.

31I am not satisfied that adding terms and conditions to the appellant’s licence is required. Further, I agree with the Registrar that the terms and conditions proposed by Law cannot be enforced. The appellant will be required to comply with the Act and regulations as well as the city’s by-laws or it runs the risk of having its licence revoked. The terms and conditions the added party proposes do not address any evidence-based concern about the premises. As a result, I am not satisfied that ordering terms and conditions to the appellant’s licence is required.

Conclusions

32I have considered the concerns expressed by the added party and their witness 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.

33I find that the added party has failed to establish that granting a liquor licence 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. I order the Registrar to issue a licence to the appellant.

ORDER

34Having considered the evidence and submissions of the parties, I direct the Registrar to issue the licence to operate a liquor consumption premises to the appellant.