Registrar, Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario v. Two-Four-Seven Lounge and Restaurant Inc.
CITATION: Registrar, Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario v. Two-Four-Seven Lounge and Restaurant Inc., 2025 ONSC 2586
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 674/24
DATE: 20250429
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
Sachs, Lococo and A.D. Kurke JJ.
BETWEEN:
Registrar, Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario
Applicant
– and –
Two-Four-Seven Lounge and Restaurant Inc., o/a Two-Four-Seven Lounge and Restaurant and Adeniyi Balogun
Respondent
Kristina Yeretsian and Michael J. Sims, for the Applicant
Matthew Tubie, for the Respondent
Douglas Lee and Olivia Filetti for the Licence Appeal Tribunal
HEARD at Toronto by videoconference: April 28, 2025
Reasons for Judgment
H. Sachs J.
[1] The Registrar, Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario (the “Registrar” and “AGCO”) seeks judicial review of the decision and reconsideration decision of the Licence Appeal Tribunal (the “LAT” or the “Tribunal”).
[2] On April 18, 2021, the Respondent, Two-Four-Seven Lounge and Restaurant Inc. (the “Licencee”) was approved for a liquor licence. Attached to that licence were three terms and conditions, all designed to ensure that Jimi Azeez Amidu, a previous owner, was not in the vicinity of the Licencee, and was not involved in its business operations or employed by the Licencee in any capacity. The Respondent, Adeniyi Balogun, is the principal of the Licencee.
[3] Licenced premises in Ontario are subject to compliance inspections by the AGCO. During the course of an inspection, the Liquor Licence and Control Act, 2019, S.O. 2019, c. 15, Sched. 22 (the “Act”) requires a licencee to comply with a request for documents made by an inspector designated by the AGCO. The AGCO conducted inspections of the Licencee’s premises and found that Mr. Amidu was present on the premises on two occasions. The inspector also asked an employee at the Licencee’s establishment to produce the liquor licence with the conditions attached and the employee could not do so. The standards enacted under the Act require a licencee to post its licence in a conspicuous place on its premises. Further, the inspector required the Licencee to produce certain documents, which were not produced.
[4] On April 15, 2024, the AGCO sent the Licencee a Notice of Proposal to Revoke its licence. The Licencee appealed the Notice to the LAT. The LAT convened a hearing. Pursuant to s. 26(5) of the Act, after a hearing, the Tribunal may impose any condition on a licence or permit that the Tribunal considers proper to give effect to the purposes of the Act.
[5] After a two-day hearing on June 17, 2024, the LAT issued a decision (the “Decision”) in which it found that:
(a) The Licencee had breached the terms and conditions attached to its licence because Mr. Amidu was found on its premises on two occasions;
(b) The Licencee did not comply with its obligation to post its licence in a conspicuous place on its premises; and
(c) The Licencee breached s. 55(3) of the Act because it failed to facilitate the inspection by the AGCO’s inspector.
[6] Given this, the LAT held that the Registrar had met its onus of proving that there were reasonable and probable ground for believing that the Licencee will not carry on business in accordance with the law and with integrity and honesty. However, rather than revoking the Licencee’s licence, the LAT found that the public interest could be satisfied by imposing a 30-day suspension of the Licencee’s licence with terms and conditions.
[7] In reaching this conclusion, the LAT found that Mr. Balogun was experiencing serious health problems during the period when the inspections were being conducted, and that he had not had the benefit of any warnings or education about his licensing issues. Since that time, Mr. Balogun had recovered and was playing a more active role in the business. The LAT concluded that Mr. “Balogun is worthy of a second chance”. In order to drive home to Mr. Balogun the seriousness of his non-compliance with the law, the LAT imposed a 30-day suspension that would remain in place until Mr. Balogun complied with the inspector’s request for documents. In addition, the initial terms imposed on the licence were to remain in place.
[8] The Registrar requested that the LAT reconsider the Decision. On October 7, 2024, the LAT dismissed that request (the “Reconsideration Decision”).
[9] The Registrar seeks judicial review of the LAT’s decisions on the basis that they are unreasonable, for three reasons:
The LAT’s reliance on the public interest is unjustifiable in the context of the Act;
The LAT failed to provide an explanation as to what it meant by the “public interest”, which is an amorphous term with multiple meanings; and
The LAT’s decisions fail to reveal a rational chain of analysis because the LAT used the notion of public interest to give Mr. Balogun a second chance. The public interest is meant to cover the interests of society broadly and not the interests of any one individual or business.
[10] I start by noting that the Registrar concedes that the LAT had jurisdiction to make the order it did. Further, both parties agree that the applicable standard of review that this court must apply is reasonableness.
[11] I disagree with the Registrar’s submissions that the LAT’s decisions were unreasonable and could not be justified in the context of the Act. The Act, like many licencing statutes that regulate businesses, requires that those businesses not be conducted in a way that would harm the public interest, by requiring them to operate in accordance with the law so that the public’s safety is not endangered.
[12] In this case, there was an obvious concern because the LAT accepted that the Licensee had not conducted its business in accordance with the law or with honesty and integrity. Nevertheless, it found that the public interest could be satisfied with a penalty that fell short of revocation – namely a suspension and the imposition of terms.
[13] The LAT’s reasons for making this finding are clear. First, the impugned conduct had occurred during a period where the Licensee’s principal was suffering from a serious health crisis that prevented him from being active in his business. That crisis was now resolved, and Mr. Balogun was now present at his business on a regular basis. In addition, the LAT noted that the Licensee’s principal had not had the benefit of a warning and education before licence revocation. Instead of licence revocation, the LAT found that it could drive home to the Licensee’s principal the need to comply with the law by 1) imposing a 30-day suspension, and 2) continuing that suspension until Mr. Balogun supplied the AGCO with all of the documents it was requesting. The balancing involved in imposing this penalty was a reasonable one, given the nature of the conduct at issue in the proceedings (which was not at the most serious end), and the mitigating factors identified by the LAT.
[14] For these reasons, the application is dismissed. As agreed by the parties, the Registrar shall pay the Respondents their costs of this application, fixed in the amount of $7,500.
Sachs, J
I agree _______________________________
Lococo, J
I agree _______________________________
Kurke, J
Released: April 29. 2025
CITATION: Registrar, Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario v. Two-Four-Seven Lounge and Restaurant Inc., 2025 ONSC 2586
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 674/24
DATE: 20250429
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
Sachs, Lococo and A.D. Kurke JJ.
BETWEEN:
Registrar, Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario
Applicant
– and –
Two-Four-Seven Lounge and Restaurant Inc., o/a Two-Four-Seven Lounge and Restaurant and Adeniyi Balogun
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Sachs J.
Released: April 29, 2025