Pradeep Chand

The Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming proposed a 30-day suspension of the appellant's liquor sales licence for multiple alleged infractions across six inspections.

The Tribunal found that the licensee breached the Liquor Licence Act and its regulations by failing to facilitate an inspection, failing to clear signs of service within 45 minutes, permitting drunkenness on three separate occasions, and allowing an unauthorized person behind the bar.

The allegation regarding inaccurate liquor pricing lists was dismissed.

The parties were directed to provide written submissions on the appropriate sanction.

The Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming issued a Notice of Proposal to revoke the appellant's liquor licence due to repeated incidents of open drug use, drug trafficking, and intoxicated patrons on the premises.

The appellant admitted to the allegations but argued for a suspension rather than revocation.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant had failed to take meaningful steps to address the issues, even after a previous suspension, and demonstrated a lack of commitment to compliance.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to immediately revoke the appellant's liquor licence.

The Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming proposed to suspend the appellant's liquor licence for 60 days after a patron was struck and killed by a vehicle shortly after leaving the appellant's premises.

The Tribunal found that the appellant breached the Liquor Licence Act by serving the patron when he was or appeared to be intoxicated, and by permitting drunkenness on the premises.

However, the Tribunal found no evidence that the appellant engaged in practices encouraging immoderate consumption.

The matter was left open for submissions on the appropriate sanction.

Following a motion to strike portions of a statement of claim, the court determined the appropriate costs payable to individually named defendants whose claims had been struck as an abuse of process.

The plaintiff had asserted a $10 million claim against individual employees and directors of corporate defendants without adequately pleading separate acts or interests beyond their corporate roles.

The individual defendants sought substantial indemnity costs, arguing the claims constituted tactical harassment.

The court found the claims against the individuals lacked proper particulars but concluded the circumstances did not justify elevated costs.

Partial indemnity costs were instead fixed at reduced amounts reflecting duplication of work with corporate defendants’ counsel.

The appellant, a licensed establishment, brought a motion to dismiss the Registrar's Notice of Proposal to revoke its liquor licence.

The appellant argued that the Registrar's delay in issuing the notice constituted an abuse of process, and that insufficient disclosure and the death of a key investigating inspector impaired its ability to make full answer and defence.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding no inordinate delay or significant prejudice to justify a stay of proceedings.

The Tribunal also held that the disclosure provided was adequate and that the unavailability of the inspector did not prejudice the appellant, as the related overcrowding allegation was withdrawn and direct complainants would testify regarding the noise complaints.

The defendants moved under Rules 21 and 25 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to strike the plaintiff’s statement of claim alleging civil conspiracy, unlawful interference with economic interests, trespass, and breach of confidence arising from alleged GPS tracking of the plaintiff’s service vehicles to obtain customer information.

The court held that the pleadings for civil conspiracy lacked the required material facts and particulars but granted leave to amend.

The claim for intentional interference with economic interests was struck without leave to amend because the pleadings failed to allege unlawful means directed at a third party as required by the Supreme Court’s formulation of the tort.

Allegations against individual corporate officers were struck as an abuse of process for failing to plead independent tortious conduct.

Claims for trespass to chattels and breach of confidence were allowed to proceed, while the trespass to land claim was struck with leave to amend.

The appellant, a registered motor vehicle salesperson, brought a motion to extend the time to file an appeal of a Notice of Proposal to Revoke Registration.

The appeal was filed two business days late due to an administrative error by the appellant's counsel.

Applying the four factors from Manuel, the Tribunal found that the appellant had a bona fide intention to appeal, the delay was short and explained, and there was no significant prejudice to the Registrar.

The Tribunal granted the extension of time and set aside the final notice revoking the registration.

The appellant applied for an additional capacity of 42 persons for its outdoor patio.

Area residents and the City of Toronto objected, citing ongoing noise issues that disrupted the peaceable enjoyment of their properties.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the objectors met the onus of establishing that granting the additional capacity was not in the public interest, given the history of noise complaints and the patio's location in a residential neighbourhood.

The application was denied.

The Applicant appealed a Notice of Proposal by the Registrar to revoke his conditional registration as a motor vehicle salesperson.

The Applicant had failed to fully disclose his criminal record during the application process and subsequently breached conditions requiring him to provide an official criminal record check.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that while the Applicant breached the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002, his conduct did not warrant revocation.

The Tribunal ordered that the registration be continued, subject to a 120-day suspension and additional reporting conditions.

The applicant applied for a liquor licence for an additional outdoor area for 30 persons.

A local resident filed a written objection, prompting a Notice of Proposal to review the application.

The objector failed to attend the scheduled hearing despite receiving notice.

The Tribunal held that the onus was on the objector to prove that issuing the licence was against the public interest.

In the absence of any evidence from the objector, the Tribunal directed the Registrar to issue the licence.

At a pre-hearing conference regarding Notices of Proposal to suspend a liquor licence, the Board of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario issued a procedural order.

The licensee was ordered to disclose its witness list and evidence summaries 10 days before the hearing, and the Registrar was ordered to complete any further disclosure by the same deadline.

At a pre-hearing conference regarding a Notice of Proposal to suspend the liquor licence of ZU BAR, the Board of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario ordered mutual disclosure of witness lists, evidence summaries, and documents ten days prior to the scheduled hearing date.

The Registrar of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario issued Notices of Proposal to suspend and revoke the licensee's liquor licence for various infractions, including failing to clear liquor, permitting drunkenness, and failing to facilitate an inspection.

Following an Agreed Statement of Facts and a Joint Submission on Disposition, the Board found the licensee breached the Liquor Licence Act and its regulations.

The Board ordered a 55-day suspension of the liquor licence.

At a pre-hearing tele-conference regarding a Notice of Proposal to suspend a liquor licence, the Board ordered mutual disclosure.

The Licensee was ordered to disclose its witness list and evidence summaries to the Registrar 10 days before the hearing, and the Registrar was ordered to complete any further disclosure by the same deadline.

The Registrar of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario issued a Notice of Proposal to suspend the licensee's liquor licence for serving intoxicated patrons.

The parties submitted an Agreed Statement of Facts admitting the breaches and a Joint Submission on Disposition proposing a 25-day suspension.

The Board accepted the joint submission, finding the licensee breached the Liquor Licence Act and its regulations, and ordered a 25-day suspension of the liquor licence.

The Registrar of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario issued Notices of Proposal to suspend and revoke the liquor licence of the respondent, as well as to review an application for additional licensed areas.

Following a pre-hearing conference, the Board ordered that the suspension and revocation proposals be joined and heard together, with the application review to be heard subsequently.

The Board also set a schedule for witness and evidence disclosure.

A pre-hearing conference was held regarding a Notice of Proposal to suspend the liquor licence of the respondent licensee.

The Board noted that three additional Notices of Proposal had been issued, including one to revoke the licence.

On consent of the parties, the Board ordered that the four Notices of Proposal be joined and heard together.

The Board also set deadlines for the mutual disclosure of witness lists, evidence summaries, and other materials prior to the first hearing date.

The Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario held a pre-hearing teleconference regarding a Notice of Proposal to suspend the liquor licence of Kentley Corp., operating as London Mansion.

The Board ordered mutual disclosure of witnesses and evidence summaries ten days prior to the scheduled hearing date.

A pre-hearing tele-conference was held regarding a Notice of Proposal to revoke the liquor licence of C.G.'s Hideaway.

The hearing was adjourned to a date to be scheduled.

The Board ordered the licensee to disclose its witness list and evidence summaries, and the Registrar to complete any further disclosure, both ten days before the hearing date.