BPE Developments Inc. o/a The Belvedere Hotel v. Registrar under the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario Act, 2019, 2025 ONLAT LLCA 17149
Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 17149/LLCA
Appeal from a Notice of Proposal to review an application for a liquor licence under the Liquor Licence Control Act, 2019. S.O. 2019 c15, Sched. 22 (the “Act”)
Between:
BPE Developments Inc. o/a The Belvedere Hotel
Applicant
and
Registrar under the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario Act, 2019
Respondent
and
Allan Lochhead and Brian Odette
Added Parties
DECISION AND ORDER
VICE-CHAIR: Geneviève Painchaud
APPEARANCES:
For the Applicant: Ben Pilon, Owner Gabriella Martins, General Manager
For the Respondent: Brian Haddad, Counsel
For the Added Parties: Allan Lochhead Brian Odette
Held by videoconference: August 6, 2025
OVERVIEW
1BPE Developments Inc. o/a The Belvedere Hotel (the “applicant”) appeals from Notice of Proposal to Review Application (“NOP”) issued May 15, 2025, by the Registrar under the Act (the “Registrar”) pursuant to paragraph 1 of s. 25(1) of the Act.
2The applicant applied for a licence to sell alcoholic beverages pursuant to the Act for the Belvedere Hotel operating at 141 King Street East, Kingston, Ontario (the “premises”).
3The application is for a capacity of 84 people in the indoor area and a total of 70 people on the outdoor patios; 60 people on Patio 1 and 10 people on Patio 2.
4Pursuant to s. 7 of the Act, notice of the application for licence was advertised on the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario website on December 11, 2024, and the Registrar provided the applicant with a written public notification of the application.
5The Registrar received written objections from two individuals, Allan Lochhead and Brian Odette. As a result, the Registrar issued an NOP in order to determine whether the issuance of a licence is in the public interest having regard to the needs and wishes of the residents of the municipality in which the premises are located.
6The objectors confirmed that their objections only relate to the outdoor patios. The Registrar therefore withdrew its notice of proposal to review application of the indoor area.
7The applicant presented three witnesses: Ben Pilon, owner, Gabriella Martins, General Manager and Kelsey Jones, Planner.
8For the added parties, Allan Lochhead testified as well as Brian Odette and his spouse Brigit Odette.
ISSUE IN DISPUTE
9The issues to be decided at the hearing are:
a) Is the issuance of a liquor licence for the outdoor area of the premises with a total capacity of 70 persons not in the public interest, having regard to the needs and wishes of the residents of the municipality in which the premises are located?
b) If not contrary to the public interest, whether the Tribunal should impose conditions on the licence pursuant to s. 26(5) of the Act; and
c) If so, what conditions should be imposed.
RESULT
10After considering all the evidence presented, I have concluded that the application should be granted with conditions listed below and, pursuant to ss. 26(3) and (5) of the Act, direct the Registrar accordingly.
THE LAW
11Section 8(1) of the Act provides that the Registrar shall issue a licence to an applicant if the applicant, among other things, complies with the Act, the regulations and the standards and requirements established by the Registrar, and is not ineligible to be issued a licence.
12Section 3(6) of the Act states 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.
13The Act requires the Registrar to give notice of a liquor licence application to the residents of the municipality in which the premises are located (s. 7(1)). If the Registrar receives written objections, it may issue a proposal to review the application (s. 7(7)) and the applicant may then request a hearing by the Tribunal to determine whether the licence should be issued (s. 26(1)). After the hearing, the Tribunal may direct the Registrar to issue the licence or to refuse to issue the licence (s. 26(3)). 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 (s. 26(5)).
14The onus is on the added parties, the objectors, 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 applicant.
15The 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.
16In making its decision, the Tribunal is required to balance the applicant’s qualified right to a licence against the needs and wishes of the residents of the municipality.
EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS
The premises and recent history
17The premises are in Sydenham Ward in Kingston. It is mostly a residential area with some commercial and institutional buildings. It is on King Street which is an arterial road close to downtown Kingston.
18The building at 141 King Street East was built in 1880 as a private home with a stable. In 1915 it became operating as The Belvedire Apartment Hotel which eventually became known as the Belvedere Hotel. The applicant has done extensive renovations to the premises since 2022 including adding a small café, a meeting room, and a tranquillity spa. The café is an expansion on the existing lounge and breakfast area which had been used for years, mostly for guests to have breakfast.
19The seasonal patios are open May to October. Patio 1 has existed since 1880 and can seat up to 60 guests. It is located along Mr. Lochhead’s property and is along a 7.7-foot stone wall that separates the two properties. Patio 2 replaced parking spots, and is also along Mr. Lochhead’s property line, but closer to his house. It is accessible through the spa and can accommodate 10 guests.
20Mr. Odette lives next to Mr. Lochhead’s and has a direct view of the premises, as they are separated by Mr. Lochhead’s yard and parking area.
21The applicant submits that it has taken active steps to address the concerns of neighbours, proposing last call on the patios at 9 p.m. and the patios closing at 10 p.m. As part of extensive renovations, it has changed the hotel’s amenities to include a tranquillity spa and therefore wants to have a quiet environment for guests.
22It targets guests averaging 45 years of age. While it does not have a fully functioning kitchen, it plans on offering breakfast and shareable plates along with beverages to complement the guests’ experience.
The objections
23Mr Lochhead submits that granting the liquor licence is not in the best interest of the community which is in a heritage designated neighbourhood because it impacts the immediate neighbours’ quality of life. Its impact would not fall on the general public but on the immediate neighbours.
24While the zoning has been approved as a legal non-conforming use, he submits that this should not be interpreted as having community support and that it is inconsistent with the city’s official plan. Back in 1986, a proposal for a restaurant in the premises was denied.
25Relying on 1000652193 Ontario Corp. o/a Aisle 3 Bar v. Registrar under the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario Act, 2019, 2025 CanLII 45362 (ON LAT) (“Aisle 3”), Mr. Lochhead submits that the panel confirmed at para. 11 that immediate neighbours carry more weight:
…the opinions of residents who live closest to the proposed premises and who are most likely to experience the effects of the applicant’s operations are given greater weight and consideration than other residents of the municipality.
26He is concerned about the visual and auditory issues and the long-term impact on the value of his home which he has owned for 37 years because people are louder when they have alcohol.
27Mr. Odette argues that a liquor licence is not in the public interest for a residential neighbourhood and that it would overwhelm the historical neighbourhood. He has a direct view of Patio 1 and is less than 20 meters away.
28Mrs. Odette submits that 150 people on the patio would have a devastating impact and is worried that university students will discover this place. She was unaware that the permit was for a maximum of 70 people.
The applicant’s position
29The owner, Mr. Pilon, submits that the renovations of the premises are nearing completion after three years with many inspections completed.
30He adds that Patio 1 has been in existence since 1880 and has been used for a breakfast area in the past for hotel guests. The applicant seeks to offer a limited food and bar menu.
31In support of its application, the applicant submitted letters of support from Kingston Accommodation Partners, Tourism Kingston, Economic Development Co. and Jason O’Brien, a close neighbour. They state that the Belvedere Hotel will become a valued destination and an asset to the neighbourhood and that dining options helps the guest experience.
32Ms. Jones explained how there were other inns and restaurant with liquor licences within a few blocks and that while the neighbourhood is predominantly residential, it was developed eclectically and has parks, a hospital, library, school, multi-residential housing and numerous commercial properties. The premises’ zoning is a legal non-conforming use, allowing it to operate as a hotel legally.
33She adds that the 1986 decision not to have a restaurant is not relevant due to the passage of time and provincial and municipal policy changes since.
34The applicant submits that it has held 3 events so far with special permits and Mr. Lochhead states that there have not been any disturbances from these events.
35As for the objectors’ concerns about large events like weddings, the applicant stated that the maximum number of people it could accommodate for such events is about 25 but ideally it would be for 12-15 guests.
36It submits that it has created a Good Neighbourhood Policy to ensure the least amount of disruption for neighbours, and because it is not in its best interest either to have excessive noise on the patios as hotel rooms are just above them, and because it is marketed as a tranquil and silent spa and hotel.
37The applicant’s Good Neighbourhood Policy is meant to be an internal document for staff training. It describes the hotel’s commitment to being a respectful and responsible member of the community and its efforts to minimize disturbances, including noise management and concluding outdoor alcohol service by 9 p.m. vs. 2 a.m. inside.
The Registrar’s position
38The Registrar does not take a position on the licence application. It only requests that if conditions are imposed, that they be clear and enforceable.
Analysis
39I find that the issuing of a liquor licence to the applicant is not contrary to the public interest if it includes conditions.
40Section 3(6) of the Act does specify that the Registrar cannot issue a licence if it is contrary to 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.
41I agree with the Tribunal’s statement in Aisle 3 that the opinions of residents who live closest to the proposed premises are given greater weight and consideration than other residents of the municipality.
42Nevertheless, the opinions of the residents living closest to the proposed premises are not the only consideration: see Maya Records Inc. v. Ontario (Alcohol and Gaming Commission), 2012 ONSC 5656 (Div. Ct.) and Powerhouse Corporation v. Registrar of Alcohol, Gaming and Racing, 2018 CanLII 79631 at paras. 18-19 (ON LAT). The objectors have the burden of proving on a balance of probabilities that issuing the licence is not in the public interest: see Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario v. Arena Entertainment Inc. (CIRCA), 2008 CanLII 13359 at para. 33 (ON SCDC). Mr. Lochhead accepted that the impact of a liquor licence does not affect the general public but the immediate neighbours. I therefore need to weigh the impacts of the community as a whole.
43I accept that the objectors have concerns over alcohol being served and that they are concerned that it could involve a noisier environment for them, but the conditions that the applicant suggested address this issue.
44I also accept the zoning of the land on which the premises is situated is a legal non-confirming use for a hotel, therefore a hotel is permitted to operate at that location.
45I find that while the area is a historical district that is mainly residential, there are many other types of establishments within a few hundred feet, and several with liquor licences, so granting a licence is not out of the ordinary for the neighbourhood.
46Mr. Lochhead did not have concerns over the few events that have been held at the premises recently in terms of disturbance, nor that the patio has welcomed guests for the over three decades he has lived there.
47The premises have had a patio where Patio 1 is located for over 100 years and the objectors have lived there for over 30 years and accepted this patio was there when they purchased their home. There have been hotel guests sitting on that patio for decades. I do not find that the objectors have established that serving alcohol until 9 p.m. will have a significant impact on the objectors’ properties compared to the current situation. In fact, Mrs. Odette was misinformed on the capacity of the patio in her testimony and thought there would be significantly more people on it.
48The main difference of capacity is Patio 2 which only seats 10 people that are coming from the tranquillity spa. The objectors have not established that this is significant enough to be contrary to the public interest.
49On the other hand, the greater public has shown support for the issuance of the liquor licence such as Kingston Accommodation Partners, Tourism Kingston and Economic Development Co. which express a great interest from members of the municipality.
50While I understand the concerns and worries of the objectors, weighing the interest of the immediate neighbours and the wishes and best interest of the members of the municipality, I find that the objectors have not established on a balance of probabilities that the issuance of a liquor licence subject to the following conditions addressing hours of operation and noise is contrary to the public interest.
Conditions
51As noted above, as per s. 26(5) of the Act, 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. I am alive to the concerns of the objectors with respect to the possible level of noise and ensuring these patios do not become an outdoor bar that creates a lot of noise. I give weight to the residential area surrounding the hotel and the proximity of the neighbours’ properties.
52The applicant attempted to address the objectors’ concerns, offering that they could limit the service on the outdoor patio and limit the noise. I find such conditions will address some of the concerns raised by the objectors and minimize the level of noise for the immediate neighbours. This would be in the public interest.
53The objectors took no position regarding the conditions and insisted no liquor licence be issued.
54The Registrar took no position on whether conditions should be imposed but requested that if the Tribunal imposed conditions, that they be clear and enforceable. As such, they suggested specific wording, which I used and which the applicant agreed with.
55Also, Ontario Regulation 746-21 under the Act outlines several other rules the applicant is bound by under their liquor licence, including s. 45 which states that:
The holder of a licence that applies to outdoor premises shall not permit noise that arises directly or indirectly from entertainment on the premises or from the sale and service of liquor to disturb persons who reside near the premises.
56I find that it is appropriate in the circumstances to impose the following conditions to the licence to be issued:
a. The sale and service of liquor licence for the outdoor patio areas shall cease by 9 p.m. and outdoor licenced areas shall close by 10 p.m.
b. There shall be no amplified music on or directed towards any outdoor areas of licenced premises after 9:30 p.m.
ORDER
57Having considered the evidence and submissions of the parties, pursuant to ss. 26(3) and (5) of the Act, I direct the Registrar to issue a licence for the premises with the following conditions:
a. The sale and service of liquor licence for the outdoor patio areas shall cease by 9 p.m. and outdoor licenced areas shall close by 10 p.m.
b. There shall be no amplified music on or directed towards any outdoor areas of licenced premises after 9:30 p.m.
Released: August 27, 2025
Geneviève Painchaud
Vice-Chair