Court File and Parties

Citation: Registrar, AGCO v. Two-Four-Seven Lounge and Restaurant Inc., 2024 ONSC 4369 Divisional Court File No.: 417/24 Date: 2024-08-07 Superior Court of Justice – Ontario Divisional Court

Re: Registrar, Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario, Appellant And: Two-Four-Seven Lounge and Restaurant Inc. o/a Two-Four-Seven Lounge and Restaurant and Adeniyi Balogun, Respondents

Before: Justice O’Brien

Counsel: M. Sims and K. Yeretsian, Counsel for the Appellant No response received from the Respondents

Heard: Motion in-writing

Endorsement

[1] The Registrar has brought a motion seeking an order for substituted service of the notice of appeal and certificate respecting evidence on the respondent, Adeniyi Balogun.

[2] The appeal arises from a decision of the Licence Appeal Tribunal dated June 17, 2024 that ordered the appellant Registrar not to carry out its proposed notice of proposal (NOP). If carried out, the NOP would revoke the liquor licence of the corporate licensee, Two-Four-Seven Lounge and Restaurant. The Tribunal instead ordered a 30-day suspension of the licensee’s licence. Mr. Balogun is the sole officer, director and shareholder of the licensee.

[3] I am satisfied the Registrar has met the test for substituted service set out in r. 16.04(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194. It is at this point impractical for the Registrar to continue to attempt to serve Mr. Balogun personally with the notice of appeal and certificate because the Registrar has made comprehensive efforts to do so without success. Specifically, the Registrar has:

a) Attempted to serve Mr. Balogun personally at the licensee. When he was not present, the process servers left delivery cards with employees of the licensee.

b) Attempted to serve Mr. Balogun personally at his last known address.

c) Attempted to serve Mr. Balogun personally at an address on file for the licensee and at the next door address where the process server was told he lived.

d) Attempted to serve Mr. Balogun by e-mail to his last known e-mail address; and

e) Attempted to contact Mr. Balogun by phone and by leaving voice messages.

[4] It is also likely Mr. Balogun has received notice of the appeal because copies were left with employees of the licensee when the Registrar effected service on the licensee. In addition, the paralegal who represented Mr. Balogun before the Tribunal acknowledged service of correspondence regarding the Registrar’s appeal. Finally, Mr Balogun likely received notice of the appeal when the documents were sent by e-mail and were left at the front door and mailed to his last known address. The e-mail address was used by Mr. Balogun to communicate with the Registrar regarding the licensee’s updated application. The address was listed as his personal address in the licensee’s federal corporation information.

[5] Overall, I am satisfied it is likely Mr. Balogun is aware of the appeal. It is in the interests of justice to make an order for substituted service.

[6] Service shall be deemed effective on July 17, 2024, which is the date the appeal documents were e-mailed to Mr. Balogun’s last known e-mail address. It is also after the documents were served on the licensee.

[7] The motion is allowed. I have signed the order in the form provided.

O’Brien J

Date: August 7, 2024