Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 16672 & 16977/LLCA

In the matter of an appeal from a Suspension Order and a Notice of Proposal to revoke a licence under the Liquor Licence and Control Act, 2019, S.O. 2019, c. 15.

Between:

15130654 Canada Inc. operating as Savanna Lounge

Appellant

and

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

Respondent

DECISION

ADJUDICATORS:

Jeffery Campbell, Vice Chair Michael Beauchesne, Member

APPEARANCES:

For the Appellant:

Lawrence Greenspon, Counsel

Hannah Drennan, Counsel

For the Respondent:

Rena Khan, Counsel

Tim Edwards, Counsel

HEARD: June 10, 11 and 12, 2025

OVERVIEW

115130654 Canada Inc. operating as Savanna Lounge (the “appellant”) is the holder of a liquor licence issued pursuant to the Liquor Licence and Control Act 2019, S.O. 2019, c. 15, Sched. 22 (the “Act”). The appellant appeals an Immediate Suspension Order suspending the liquor licence (“Order”) issued by the Registrar, Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario Act, 2019 (the “Registrar”) on January 17, 2025, as well as a Notice of Proposal to revoke the liquor licence (“NOP”) issued by the Registrar on March 3, 2025. For context, the disputed NOP is amended from an earlier NOP issued on January 17, 2025.

2The appellant conducts business as a restaurant, bar, and shisha lounge at 145 Besserer Street in Ottawa, Ontario ("the premises"). Ms. Amina Mohamed ("Ms. Mohamed”) is the sole shareholder, director, and officer of the appellant.

ISSUES

3The issues in dispute are:

1. Pursuant to section 3(4)(b) of the Act, does the past or present conduct of Ms. Mohammed afford reasonable grounds for belief that the appellant will not carry on business in accordance with the law and with integrity and honesty?

2. Pursuant to section 37 of Ontario Regulation 746/21 of the Act, did Ms. Mohammed fail to ensure that evidence of liquor that had been served and consumed on the licensed premises was removed within 45 minutes after the end of the period during which liquor may be sold and served under the licence?

3. Pursuant to section 66(1) of the Act, did one or more persons hinder, obstruct, or interfere with—or attempt to hinder, obstruct, or interfere with—an inspector conducting an inspection under the Act, refuse to answer questions on matters relevant to the inspection, or provide the inspector with false information on matters relevant to the inspection?

4. Pursuant to standard 1.1 of the Registrar’s Interim Standards and Requirements for Liquor made under the Act, did Ms. Mohammed carry on business to which the licence applies under a name other than the name set out on the licence?

5. Pursuant to section 55(8) of the Act, did Ms. Mohamed fail to facilitate an inspection conducted under the Act?

4While the respondent has identified the above issues as the basis for its immediate suspension order and revocation proposal, we find that issues no. 2 through 5 go to the determination of issue no. 1 as listed above.

RESULT

5The Registrar has established reasonable grounds to believe the appellant will not carry on business in accordance with the law and act with integrity and honesty. We are therefore satisfied that sufficient grounds exist for the proposed revocation of the appellant’s licence. Accordingly, we order the Registrar to carry out the NOP.

ANALYSIS

[Section 3(4)](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/so-2019-c-15-sch-22/latest/so-2019-c-15-sch-22.html#sec3subsec4_smooth)(b) of the [Act](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/so-2019-c-15-sch-22/latest/so-2019-c-15-sch-22.html): Ms. Mohamed’s past and present conduct afford reasonable grounds for belief that the appellant will not carry on business in accordance with the law and with integrity and honesty.

6We find the applicant is not eligible for a licence under the Act because her past and present conduct afford reasonable grounds for belief that the appellant will not carry on business in accordance with the law and with integrity and honesty.

7Under section 13(1) of the Act, the Registrar may issue a proposal to refuse to renew a licence, or to suspend or revoke a licence, if the licensee (i.e., Ms. Mohamed) would not be eligible for a licence under subsection 3(4) or 3(6) if she were an applicant under section 3. In this case, the respondent relies on the grounds for ineligibility under section 3(4)(b), specifically. That is, that Ms. Mohamed’s past and present conduct afford reasonable grounds for belief that the appellant will not carry on business in accordance with the law and with integrity and honesty. The respondent bears the onus to establish that Ms. Mohamed is ineligible for a licence on this ground.

8For the standard of “reasonable grounds for belief”, the respondent does not have to show that the appellant’s past conduct makes it more likely than not that their business will not be carried out as required, but only that its belief to that effect is based on more than mere suspicion and on compelling and credible information. Further, the respondent must also show that there is a nexus between the past conduct and the appellants’ ability to conduct business under the Act serving the interests of the public see: Ontario (Alcohol and Gaming Commission) v. 751809 Ontario Inc. (Famous Flesh Gordon’s), [2013 ONCA 157](https://www.minicounsel.ca/oca/2013/157) at paras. [18-19](https://www.minicounsel.ca/oca/2013/157); Mugesera v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2005 SCC 40](https://www.minicounsel.ca/scc/2005/40) at para. [114](https://www.minicounsel.ca/scc/2005/40); and CS v. Registrar, Real Estate and Business Brokers Act, 2002, [2019 ONSC 1652](https://www.minicounsel.ca/odc/2019/1652) (Div. Ct.) at para. [32]].

Undisputed facts

9For context, the parties have agreed to certain facts that pertain to Ms. Mohamed’s past and present conduct. These facts concern two firearm-related incidents that occurred at the premises.

10The first of these occurred on June 22, 2024, and involved a patron being shot during a physical altercation between two groups of 20 attendees. This incident is further confirmed by the General Occurrence Reports of Officers Tyler Hearty and Angelito Balangatan of the Ottawa Police Service.

11The second occurred less than seven months later, on January 12, 2025, when two firearms were located on premises by police. One of the firearms was loaded and police determined that it belonged to a patron who was on premises at the time the firearm was seized. The second firearm—located behind a seating booth in close proximately to an extended ammunition magazine that was loaded with bullets—was found shortly after by police. This incident is further confirmed by the General Occurrence Reports of Officers Bradley Doyle, Shannon Hobbs, and Patrick Wiseman of the Ottawa Police Service.

The position of the parties

12The respondent submits that the firearm-related incidents establish “extreme” public safety concerns and establish that Ms. Mohamed’s past and present conduct afford reasonable grounds for belief that the appellant will not carry on business in accordance with the law and with integrity and honesty. The respondent also says there are no restrictions capable of satisfactorily mitigating these concerns.

13Ms. Mohamed asks that the appellant’s liquor licence be reinstated with conditions. She argues that the appellant is a first-time offender, having never been cited with an offence under any act, regulation, or by-law. She says she has made changes that show she has taken responsibility to prevent guns from being introduced into the premises after the June 2024 shooting. She relies on the report of an inspection by the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario (“AGCO”), conducted on July 15, 2024, to show she was “running a tight shift” the night of the shooting with patrons being searched prior to entry. The appellant also relies on a series of texts she sent to staff to show she was diligent about ensuring security at the premises.

Two separate firearm-related incidents on premises establish that the appellant is not eligible for a licence.

14We agree with the respondent’s position, which asserts that the two firearm-related incidents, owing to their serious nature and grave implications to public safety, are sufficient grounds for revocation in and of themselves. The Tribunal accepts as fact, that a shooting occurred on premises on June 22, 2024. The Tribunal also finds that the respondent has established that two firearms—one loaded and the other with ammunition readily available—were seized by police on the licensed premises on January 12, 2025.

15The thrust of Ms. Mohamed’s position on both incidents, as we understand it, is that she had taken responsibility and undertaken actions to prevent guns from being introduced into the premises, and therefore is eligible for a liquor licence. We disagree and find that Ms. Mohammed’s past and present conduct afford reasonable grounds for belief that the appellant will not carry on business in accordance with the law and with integrity and honesty.

16The entirety of the appellant’s evidence brief—as it relates to her arguments on the firearm-related incidents—consists of 13 electronic communications that constitute screen shots of text messages between Ms. Mohamed and her security detail for the appellant’s premises. We note too, that the balance of the appellant’s evidence brief consists of one e-mail, one text message, and a corresponding AGCO online enquiry form—all of which pertain to her efforts to change the business name on the liquor licence. In our view, these latter evidentiary items have little relevance to her past and present conduct as it relates to the firearm-related incidents, specifically, and we afforded them little weight in this context.

17During the hearing, Ms. Mohamed pointed to a text exchange with her previous head of security (“Michael”) on December 2, 2023 at 11:10 PM. The text advises that “everything is here now” and depicts photos of four portable radios and two hand-held metal detector scanners (“wands”). We gave little weight to this evidence in support of the appellant’s case because a gun was nevertheless brought into the premises and used to shoot a patron less than seven months later in June 2024.

18We find there are reasonable grounds to believe that security measures were not consistently implemented up to the shooting. Aside from the shooting itself, this is supported by Ms. Mohamed’s testimony, which indicated that her all-male security team was, at best, reluctant to search female patrons and that just one wand was in use the day of the shooting. Ms. Mohamed’s explanation for the missing wand was that a former security employee had taken it with him, although she did not indicate when the wand was taken or whether a replacement had been sought.

19In Ms. Mohamed’s estimation, the firearm was smuggled into the premises by a female patron who had not been subjected to a security search. However, we find there are reasonable grounds to believe the security breach was broader than this because Ms. Mohamed conveyed under cross-examination that staff were not searched or subjected to the wand despite her “no exceptions” security policy. Ms. Mohamed acknowledged during cross-examination that she was responsible for the conduct of her staff and what happens in her establishment. She also agreed she bore the responsibility for firearms being found in her bar, and for safety concerning the shooting. Given the outcomes on June 22, 2024, and January 12, 2025, we conclude that she ultimately failed to meet her responsibility for public safety.

20While Ms. Mohamed relied on multiple other texts with her security team to demonstrate that her past conduct is compatible with the requirements set out in the Act, we find these texts support the respondent’s position because they show Ms. Mohamed failed to implement consistent and effective security measures at the premises to ensure public safety. On the same day the shooting occurred in June 2024, Ms. Mohamed had texted her current head of security (“Patrick”) at 1:10 a.m. to remind him to thoroughly search everyone. She testified that this text intended to convey that everybody needed to be searched without exception because she had security concerns about the line-up getting “really big.” Considering a patron was subsequently shot on premise, we are persuaded her text was not heeded.

21We also find, with few exceptions, that security lapses persisted after the shooting as well. For example, in an undated text to Patrick—which Ms. Mohamed testified was sent after the shooting—she notes “your security aren’t doing a proper pat down.” Ms. Mohamed testified that she sent this text after observing improper pat downs on security cameras. Then, on June 29, 2024 at 10:25 p.m., she tells Patrick he needs to talk to his security team because they didn’t check purses or bags belonging to Ms. Mohamed’s friends. In our view, these lapses are remarkable when viewed against a backdrop of gun violence that occurred just a week earlier. Further, when considered in concert with the security lapse that led to the shooting, they serve to greatly diminish the persuasiveness of the lead police investigator’s opinion that Ms. Mohamed was indeed “running a tight shift” and ensuring patrons were being searched prior to entry. Rather, the pattern we draw from this evidence is one of repeated disregard for public safety.

22During the hearing, Ms. Mohamed shared a number of changes she made to improve security after the shooting of June 22, 2024. She said she doubled her security detail to six employees, bought two more wands, and purchased earpieces. We are not satisfied these changes made sufficient improvements to public safety, given that firearms again found their way on premise in January 2025.

23It appears too, that Ms. Mohamed harboured doubts about the effectiveness of these measures. She testified that when the firearms were found on premise she felt she had not done enough and was upset about guns in her business. She added that a family member had been “gunned down” in 2016, and that there is a gun epidemic in the city. This latter point was also emphasized in a September 2024 text, which detailed her thoughts on “waking up to shootings, stabbing (sic), and deaths every day this week.”

24But despite her insights on gun violence, we find Ms. Mohamed took little meaningful action to prevent it on the appellant’s premises. The evidence shows that Ms. Mohamed continued to rely nearly exclusively on text messages to manage performance issues with her security detail despite getting poor results. We were not pointed to evidence that, given the repeated failures of security employees and their manager to comply with policy on pat downs and use of wands, Ms. Mohamed contemplated other means of discharging her responsibilities to get better results—outside of weekly meetings—such as disciplinary actions, personnel changes, or professional security training for her employees, for example. As such, we find Ms. Mohamed failed to take adequate steps to ensure her security policies were followed, and in doing so, condoned a disproportionate and ineffective security response to the serious threat firearms pose to public safety.

25While we accept that sending text reminders about job expectations and supplying security equipment is conduct consistent with the expectations of a licensee, these actions clearly were not enough and Ms. Mohamed did not do more despite having hindsight after the shooting. In our view, these measures do not relieve Ms. Mohamed of her duty to also ensure her security staff are properly trained and licensed to do their jobs effectively, nor to put the necessary controls in place to ensure compliance with policies and procedure. The evidence offered during the hearing fell short of persuading us that Ms. Mohamed engaged accordingly in this regard.

Conclusion

26In conclusion, the respondent relies on two firearm-related incidents at the licensed premises to show that Ms. Mohamed’s past and present conduct afford reasonable grounds for belief that she will not carry on business in accordance with the law and act with integrity and honesty. Ms. Mohamed did not implement effective operational improvements to mitigate the public safety concerns arising from serious security lapses that led to two firearm-related incidents at the licensed premises in less than a year—one involving the shooting of a patron and the other involving two firearms complete with ammunition.

27As such, we have determined that Ms. Mohamed’s past and present conduct affords reasonable grounds for belief that she will not carry on business in accordance with the law and act with integrity and honesty. She has not taken her public safety responsibilities to heart. At best, she has provided lip service through text messages that have repeatedly raised the same concerns and issues about compliance with pat downs, accessory searches, and wand use with little effect. Given that the Act is, at its core, public safety legislation that Ms. Mohamed is obliged to comply with as a licensee, it cannot be said that her past conduct is predictive of carrying on business in accordance with the law and acting with integrity and honesty.

28As an alternative to revocation, we considered whether the respondent should be directed to carry out the proposal with any changes that the Tribunal considers appropriate under section 26(4) of the Act. We also considered whether the Registrar should be directed to not carry out of the NOP, but instead whether conditions should be imposed on the appellants licence under section 26(5) of the Act.

29We determined, in this case, that changes or conditions as an alternative to revocation are untenable.

30During the hearing, the appellant proposed several conditions for us to consider, and she conveyed her willingness to abide by all of them. These conditions included maintaining the added wands, earpieces, and extra security officers she arranged after the shooting. We find these measures would be of limited effectiveness because they failed to prevent the second firearm incident. Ms. Mohamed also pledged that there would be a security guard equipped with a wand at every entrance, and that security checks would occur each time access to the licensed premises was provided. However, the facts of this case show that while Ms. Mohamed obtained resources after the shooting to support this policy, it was not effectively implemented as two firearms and ammunition were nevertheless seized by police from the licensed premises less than a year later.

31As well, we considered Ms. Mohamed’s commitment to ensure: (1) that all security cameras will be maintained in good working order with unobstructed views; (2) that surveillance video will be made available to authorities on request and stored for 30 days; and (3) that she will immediately report any criminal activity in the licensed establishment that poses a safety risk. These proposals are unpersuasive because there is nothing in the uncontroverted evidence of the respondent that would lead us to believe the imposition of conditions on the appellant’s licence would be effective. Ms. Mohamed has not demonstrated a pattern of changed behaviour despite having the benefit of hindsight that starkly laid bare the appellant’s security deficits, and which should have raised pointed questions and urgent, meaningful responses to the inadequacy of security at the licenced premises.

32In short, after the shooting occurred, Ms. Mohamed failed to take advantage of her chance to demonstrate she was eligible for a liquor licence because firearms and ammunition were once again smuggled into the licensed premises.

The other grounds pursued by the respondent.

33Given our findings under section 3(4)(b) of the Act, we find it unnecessary to make a determination on the remaining grounds raised by the respondent.

ORDER

34Pursuant to section 23(11) of the Act, the Tribunal may direct the Registrar not to carry out the proposal or may direct the Registrar to carry out the proposal, in whole or in part, and with any changes that the Tribunal considers appropriate.

35For the reasons set out above, we order the Registrar to carry out the amended NOP to revoke the appellant’s licence dated March 3, 2025.