Vegas Island Inc. v. Registrar, Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario Act, 2019, 2026 CanLII 8169

Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 18125/LLCA

In the matter of an appeal from an Immediate Suspension Order under the Liquor Licence Control Act, 2019, S.O. 2019 c. 15, Sched. 22 (the "Act").

Between:

Vegas Island Inc.

Appellant

and

Registrar, Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario Act, 2019

Respondent

DECISION

ADJUDICATOR: Caley Howard

APPEARANCES:

For the Appellant: Joseph Addelman, Counsel

For the Respondent: Aviva Harari, Counsel

Heard by Videoconference: January 23, 2026

OVERVIEW

1Vegas Island Inc. (the "appellant") appeals an Immediate Suspension Order ("ISO") of its liquor licence, issued by the Respondent under s. 13(2) of the Act, on December 11, 2025. The ISO suspended the appellant's liquor licence indefinitely.

2Clifford Bien-Aime is the sole owner and officer of the appellant, which has held a liquor licence since 2022.

3In October 2025, after a 10-month investigation, the RCMP charged the following four individuals with drug-related offences, some of which allegedly occurred in the appellant's premises, which is a strip club (the "club"): one individual was described as a regular patron of the club ("Mike"); one was a dancer at the club ("Jewel"); and two others had no connection to the club, but lived nearby.

4The respondent issued the ISO due to concerns that the appellant knew, or ought to have known, the alleged conduct was occurring in the club and took no steps to prevent it.

ISSUES

5The issues in dispute are:

i. Whether it is necessary in the public interest to uphold the ISO of the appellant's liquor licence?

RESULT

6I find that the ISO of the appellant's liquor licence is necessary in the public interest and I uphold the suspension.

ANALYSIS

The ISO of the appellant's liquor licence is necessary in the public interest

7Section 3(4)(f) of the Act states that an appellant is not eligible for a licence if the appellant would not exercise sufficient control, either directly or indirectly, over the premises.

8Under s. 13(2) of the Act, the respondent may suspend a licence issued under the Act, without issuing a proposal, if it considers it to be necessary in the public interest. The onus is on the respondent to prove that the ISO should be upheld.

9The respondent submits that despite Mr. Bien-Aime not being the subject of any criminal charges, as the sole owner and officer of the appellant, he either knew that Mike and Jewel were selling cocaine in the club, or he ought to have known. The respondent further submits that by lacking the appropriate oversight and control over the club premises, Mr. Bien-Aime facilitated the drug activity that took place there, and that the ISO is necessary in the public interest as a result. The respondent submits that, in cases where alleged criminal activity has taken place in licensed premises, it is not a sufficient defence for the licensee to claim that it was unaware of the criminal activity. In support of its submissions, the respondent relies on the testimony of RCMP Officer Andrew McFarlane, the lead investigator in charge of the 10-month investigation, and Rebecca Castillo, Senior Manager Liquor Licence Eligibility at the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario ("AGCO").

10The appellant submits that Mr. Bien-Aime was not aware of the criminal activity taking place in the club, and that he is a conscientious owner who took a number of steps to keep his patrons and employees safe. The appellant submits that if the ISO remains in place indefinitely, it will be forced to shut down. The appellant submits that the Tribunal should allow the appellant to retain its liquor licence pending the resolution of the criminal charges against Mike and Jewel, and then, if anything emerges during the trials that would warrant revoking or suspending the appellant's licence, the respondent could pursue it at that time. The appellant relies on the testimony of Mr. Bien-Aime.

11Officer McFarlane testified that he was the lead investigator in charge of a 10-month investigation that commenced with a report from a confidential informant that Mike was dealing cocaine out of the club. The investigation team included one undercover officer, referred to as "UCH", two cover officers assigned to protect UCH, and multiple other officers in charge of surveillance, evidence and other support. The team attended the club on a number of occasions. UCH purchased cocaine from Jewel in the club on two occasions and from Mike on one occasion. UCH also interacted with two other dancers in the club, Valentina and Dream, both of whom helped find someone in the club who would sell him cocaine. UCH also interacted with another dancer, Blanca, who told him that people buy cocaine in the club all the time and that he didn't need to worry about getting kicked out.

12Officer McFarlane testified about the evening of March 7, 2025, when UCH attended the club and spoke with Dream, who agreed she would find someone in the club to sell him cocaine. She introduced him to another dancer, Sky, who agreed to sell him cocaine if he did a line in front of her. UCH refused and Sky refused to sell him the cocaine. UCH told Valentina that Sky refused to sell to him, so she said she would call "her guys" and they would come sell to him. Sky then insisted that UCH owed her $200 for private dances. When he refused to pay, she went to Mr. Bien-Aime, who was at the club that night. Dream came to UCH's defence and told Mr. Bien-Aime, in front of UCH, that she was trying to help UCH buy cocaine and that Sky was lying about the private dances. Mr. Bien-Aime reviewed the security camera footage, determined that the private dances had not occurred and fired Sky.

13Mr. Bien-Aime testified that he recalled the incident, although he did not recall much about UCH. He testified that he had fired both Sky and Dream as a result of the incident and neither had been back to the club since.

14Officer McFarlane testified about April 24, 2025, when UCH purchased cocaine from Mike in the bathroom of the club. UCH was checking to make sure the door was locked and Mike told him not to worry, that no one would interrupt them and they were safe there because they had guns at the club and Mr. Bien-Aime would get rid of any police officers who attended the property. The outcome of this conversation was that the RCMP decided that it was unsafe to send UCH into the club after that date. While the team continued its investigation, and UCH had further interactions with Mike, they took place in the club parking lot and in other unrelated locations. Ms. Castillo testified that one of the main concerns of the respondent was the RCMP's determination that the club was too dangerous for UCH to attend.

15Officer McFarlane testified that Jewel gave a statement to police after being charged in October 2025. He testified that she told police that Mr. Bien-Aime made it clear that selling drugs at the club was not allowed. However, he also testified that she told the police that selling cocaine at the club benefitted both the dancers and the club because if the patrons took cocaine, they stayed at the club longer and spent more money on both drinks and private dances.

16While I acknowledge that some of the testimony of Officer McFarlane was hearsay, this evidence is permitted pursuant to s. 15 of the Statutory Powers and Procedures Act. Officer McFarlane's testimony was supported by the information and court documents related to the charges laid against the four accused individuals. I find Officer McFarlane's testimony was credible because he was the lead investigator in charge of the investigation, he was directly involved in surveillance, briefing and debriefing, and had access to all logs and notes of the other officers involved. I find that the officers involved in the investigation likely took accurate notes. Therefore, I find that Officer McFarlane's testimony is an accurate account of what UCH and the cover officers observed in the club and what was said to them. However, I do not find that everything said to UCH by a dancer or Mike was necessarily the truth because it is possible that these individuals may have been mistaken at times or motivated to lie.

17I am persuaded by Officer McFarlane's testimony that the club is small and the environment was one where the staff knew all of the customers. This testimony was based on the observations of UCH and the two cover officers who were assigned to protect him. For example, after the first date they attended the club, the investigation team decided that it would be too risky for the cover officers to enter the club with UCH again as it would be likely to cause suspicion if the three always attended the club at the same time, but did not sit together.

18In addition, I am persuaded by Officer McFarlane's testimony that cocaine was widely used and available for sale in the club because multiple dancers, on multiple dates, in the club, sold cocaine to UCH, attempted to sell cocaine to UCH or helped UCH locate another dancer who had cocaine to sell. In addition, multiple dancers identified Mike as the club drug-dealer to UCH.

19Mr. Bien-Aime further testified that he knew Mike but did not know his full name, that he was a patron at the club and that he had been a regular patron of a prior club that existed in the same premises prior to 2022. However, Mr. Bien-Aime testified that he did not to know Mike well and that he never employed him for any purpose, not even contract jobs. Mr. Bien-Aime testified that he had never called or texted Mike.

20Mr. Bien-Aime's testimony directly contradicts the testimony of Officer McFarlane, who stated that UCH observed Jewel asking Mr. Bien-Aime on March 27, 2025 where Mike was and Mr. Bien-Aime told her that he had just texted him and had received no response. I also give weight to Officer McFarlane's testimony that UCH observed Mike speaking with Mr. Bien-Aime and one of the bartenders in the hotel attached to the club on April 16, 2025. They appeared to be reviewing plans for a construction or renovation project. For these reasons, I find that Mr. Bien-Aime has down-played how well he knows Mike.

21Given the small, intimate nature of the club and the evidence of widespread drug use and sales within the club, I find that the respondent has proven, on a balance of probabilities, that Mr. Bien-Aime was either aware of, or ought to have been aware of, the drug-related activities of Mike and Jewel within the club in 2025.

22The respondent directs me to the following cases, in which liquor licences were revoked or suspended despite the licensees arguing that they were unaware of illegal activity taking place in the licensed premises, and therefore should not be held responsible: 1839328 Ontario Inc. o/a August 8 Oakville v. Registrar under the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario Act, 2019, 2025 ONLAT LLCA 17911 ("August 8"); Red Rose Adult Entertainment Club (Re), 2001 O.A.G.C.D. No. 339; Big Ed's Tab and Grill (Re), 2007 CanLII 15740 (ON AGC); and Pappa's Pizzeria (Re), 2007 CanLII 26996 (ONACG).

23I note that I am not bound by either Tribunal decisions or decisions of the Board of the AGCO. In addition, none of the cases referred to were precisely on point. However, in each case, the Board or Tribunal rejected a submission by a licensee that they should not be held responsible for illegal activities that took place in the licenced premises because they were unaware the activities were taking place. I agree that the appellant cannot be excused for being unaware of illegal activities taking place in the club because s. 3(4)(f) of the Act requires the appellant to exercise sufficient control over the premises, as a condition of eligibility for a licence.

24The appellant submits that this is not a situation where it merely claims that it did not know about the illegal activity. Mr. Bien-Aime testified that he has security cameras throughout the club, which are only viewed by Mr. Bien-Aime or a manager if a problem is brought to their attention. Mr. Bien-Aime employs trusted family members to work as managers and bartenders, and there is a manager on the floor at all times when the club is open to the public. Mr. Bien-Aime also employs a professional security guard to work during the busier times. The security guard is generally posted at the door with a metal detector to scan patrons as they enter the club, but he regularly patrols other areas of the club as well, during which time there is no security guard at the door. He further testified that he has communicated his "zero-tolerance" policy with respect to drugs and prostitution on the premises to the dancers, who are not employees, but rather independent contractors.

25Mr. Bien-Aime testified that he has a good relationship with the Ottawa Police Service ("OPS") and has called them to the club when necessary and has helped them whenever they have asked for camera footage or access to the club for any reason. He testified about an incident in 2023 when a patron named Mojo flashed a gun at someone in the club and Mr. Bien-Aime called the police. He further testified that when the police came and removed Mojo from the club, Mr. Bien-Aime also asked them to remove Mike, who had been speaking with Mojo, but the police did not remove Mike at the time.

26The appellant submits that he should be able to rely on the police to do their job and that because the police did not remove Mike from the club, that he was entitled to trust that Mike would not cause trouble in the club. I do not accept this submission. This incident took place in 2023. The failure of the police to remove Mike from the club cannot be taken as an endorsement of future behaviour, particularly when Mr. Bien-Aime had multiple opportunities to observe Mike in the club after that incident, as he remained a regular patron. Further, Mr. Bien-Aime described Mike as a "local low-life" in his testimony. I find that Mr. Bien-Aime was not misled by the OPS to believe that Mike was trustworthy.

27I find that firing Jewel after she was charged by the police is not sufficient to ensure the safety of the public. In addition, while Mr. Bien-Aime testified that he fired the dancer Dream after she told him that she had been trying to help UCH buy cocaine, I find Dream's willingness to acknowledge her activities to Mr. Bien-Aime indicative that Dream was not concerned about being fired when she came to UCH's aid.

28I find that the appellant has not taken sufficient steps in response to the RCMP investigation, to ensure the safety of the public. I give significant weight to the testimony of Officer McFarlane that the RCMP determined in April 2025 that it was not safe for UCH to enter the club. I also give weight to Mr. Bien-Aime's testimony about the security measures in place in the club. However, I find that while there were security cameras, they were not monitored, and while there was a security guard on the door, he regularly left the door to patrol, which resulted in Mike entering without being searched on at least one occasion, as was observed by UCH. As a result, I agree with the respondent's submission that Mr. Bien-Aime has the facilities and staff necessary to ensure that illegal activity does not occur on the premises. He has a number of security cameras, lots of staff, trusted staff who are family members, a manager always available, a security guard during the busier times. I find that in these circumstances, if Mr. Bien-Aime was not aware of the drug-related activities taking place in the club, it was because he did not want to know.

Conclusion

29I find that the ISO of the appellant's liquor licence is necessary in the public interest.

ORDER

30I uphold the ISO.