Philip Morris

The Registrar of Alcohol, Gaming and Racing issued a Notice of Proposal to suspend the appellant's liquor licence for 30 days after inspectors found 171 patrons in an area licensed for 94.

The appellant appealed to the Licence Appeal Tribunal.

The Tribunal found that the appellant did exceed the maximum capacity, violating section 43 of the Regulation.

However, considering mitigating factors such as the lack of serious consequences and the appellant's remedial steps, the Tribunal determined that a 30-day suspension was too harsh.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to suspend the licence for 15 days instead, satisfying the principles of general and specific deterrence.

The appellant appealed an order of the Registrar imposing a $3,000 monetary penalty for permitting patrons to pour spirits directly from bottles into their mouths, allegedly encouraging immoderate consumption.

The Tribunal found that while the appellant permitted the practice, it only encourages immoderate consumption if the bottles lack limiting pour spouts.

Because the Registrar failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that the bottles lacked limiting pour spouts, the contravention was not established and the penalty was set aside.

The Applicant appealed a Notice of Proposal by the Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming to refuse its application for a liquor licence.

The sole director of the Applicant was previously the manager of another establishment that had its licence suspended multiple times and ultimately revoked for permitting drunkenness, removing liquor, and allowing a drug transaction.

The Tribunal found that the director's past conduct and failure to ensure compliance at the previous establishment afforded reasonable grounds to believe the Applicant would not carry on business in accordance with the law and with honesty and integrity.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to carry out the proposal refusing the licence.