Rena Khan

This was a regulatory appeal from a standardbred racing ruling imposing a 10-year suspension and a $40,000 monetary penalty for alleged prohibited-substance related misconduct and misleading inspectors.

Before the appeal was heard, the appellant first withdrew a stay motion and later requested withdrawal of the appeal on consent.

The Panel acknowledged the withdrawal of the appeal on consent.

No adjudication on the merits of the underlying ruling was made.

The appellant, a cannabis retail operator, appealed a Notice of Proposal to revoke its licence.

The Registrar proposed revocation based on the sole owner's conduct during multiple inspections, where he became aggressive, yelled expletives, and forced inspectors out of the store, subsequently sending abusive and threatening messages.

The Tribunal found that the owner obstructed the inspections contrary to section 37(1) of the Cannabis Licence Act, 2018.

Concluding that the appellant would not carry on business with integrity, honesty, or in the public interest, the Tribunal confirmed the proposal and directed the revocation of the licence.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Proposal to revoke his cannabis retail manager licence.

The Registrar issued the proposal after the appellant repeatedly obstructed AGCO inspectors during compliance inspections, yelled profanities, forced them out of his store, and sent abusive and threatening messages.

The Tribunal found the appellant's conduct egregious and concluded there were reasonable grounds to believe he would not act in accordance with the law, integrity, or the public interest.

The Tribunal confirmed the proposal and directed the revocation of the licence.

The appellant appealed an Immediate Suspension Order and a Notice of Proposal to revoke its liquor licence.

The Registrar argued that two firearm-related incidents at the licensed premises, including a shooting and the seizure of loaded firearms, demonstrated that the appellant's sole shareholder would not carry on business in accordance with the law and with integrity and honesty.

The Tribunal found that the appellant failed to implement effective security measures despite the incidents and prior warnings.

The Tribunal concluded that the past and present conduct afforded reasonable grounds for belief that the business would not be operated safely, and ordered the Registrar to carry out the proposal to revoke the licence.

The appellant, operator of Rebel and Cabana Pool Bar, appealed the Registrar's proposals to add new conditions and refuse the removal of existing conditions on its liquor licence, primarily concerning outdoor noise that disturbed Toronto Island residents.

The Tribunal found that while noise had disturbed residents, the appellant's recent implementation of a cardioid speaker system and sound monitoring, along with the City of Toronto's new objective decibel-based noise by-law, constituted a change in circumstances.

The Tribunal rejected the Registrar's proposed condition to ban all outdoor amplified music, finding it disproportionate.

Instead, the Tribunal removed the subjective 'inaudibility' conditions and replaced them with objective decibel limits and mandatory sound monitoring, while adding conditions regarding capacity, community communication, and notification of future applications.

The Appellant, operator of Rebel and Cabana Pool Bar, appealed a Notice of Proposal by the Registrar to attach nine new conditions to its liquor licence, including a ban on outdoor amplified music, and a Notice of Proposal refusing to remove existing conditions.

The Tribunal found that while noise from the premises had disturbed nearby Toronto Island residents, a complete ban on outdoor amplified music was disproportionate given the Appellant's recent successful noise mitigation efforts and the implementation of a new decibel-based municipal noise by-law.

The Tribunal ordered the removal of several subjective and unenforceable conditions, replacing them with objective, decibel-based sound monitoring requirements aligned with the municipal by-law, while adding other conditions to address community concerns.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Proposal to suspend its liquor licence for 30 days and attach a condition requiring metal detectors at all entrances.

The Registrar alleged the appellant permitted disorderly conduct after a shooting occurred on the crowded premises, and failed to facilitate inspections by withholding surveillance video.

The Tribunal found the appellant knew of the risk of disorderly conduct but failed to take reasonable security measures, such as adequate searches of patrons.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to carry out the 30-day suspension and impose the metal detector condition, emphasizing the paramountcy of public safety.

The applicant, a licensed establishment, applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal to remove a condition on its liquor licence that prohibited amplified music on its patio.

The condition had been imposed on the previous owner.

The Tribunal found that a change in circumstances justified removing the condition, noting overwhelming community support for the removal, the establishment's shift to a more upscale dining experience rather than a bar, and the competitive disadvantage of being the only nearby patio with such a restriction.

The application was granted and the condition was ordered removed.

The Registrar issued a Notice of Proposal to suspend the appellant's liquor licence for 14 days following an incident where a firearm was discharged in the establishment and the appellant's directors failed to notify the police, tampered with evidence, and failed to notify the AGCO of corporate changes.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found reasonable grounds to believe the appellant would not carry on business in accordance with the law and with integrity and honesty.

However, the Tribunal determined that a 14-day suspension was not the appropriate sanction.

Instead, the Tribunal directed the Registrar not to carry out the suspension and imposed strict conditions on the licence, including mandatory security cameras, surveillance record retention, and immediate reporting of criminal activity.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Proposal to Suspend a Licence for 14 days issued by the Registrar under the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario Act, 2019.

The proposal followed an incident where a firearm was discharged in the appellant's establishment, and the appellant's directors failed to notify the police, tampered with evidence, and failed to notify the AGCO of corporate changes.

The Tribunal found reasonable grounds to believe the appellant would not carry on business in accordance with the law and with integrity and honesty.

However, the Tribunal determined that a 14-day suspension was not the appropriate sanction and instead directed the Registrar to impose specific conditions on the appellant's licence, including the installation of security cameras and a requirement to immediately report criminal activity.

The appellant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that denied his motion to extend the time for filing an appeal of a Notice of Proposal to Refuse to Issue a Licence under the Horse Racing Licence Act, 2015.

The appellant alleged the Tribunal erred in its analysis of his depression, applied the wrong standard of proof, failed to consider a peace bond, made stereotypical assumptions, and erred in finding no bona fide intent to appeal.

The Tribunal found no merit in any of the alleged errors and concluded the appellant failed to establish any grounds for reconsideration under Rule 18.2.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

The appellant applied for a liquor licence for a 10-seat restaurant area within its convenience store located near a university campus.

Several objectors, including local residents and experts, argued that granting the licence was contrary to the public interest due to concerns about human trafficking, sexual violence, underage drinking, and traffic safety.

The Tribunal found that the objectors' concerns were largely speculative and lacked objective evidence linking the proposed premises to the anticipated harms.

The Tribunal ordered the Registrar to issue the liquor licence without conditions, concluding that the objectors failed to prove the issuance was not in the public interest.

The appellant applied for a liquor licence for a 10-seat restaurant area within its convenience store located near Western University.

The Registrar issued a Notice of Proposal to Review the application after receiving objections from local residents.

The objectors argued that licensing the premises would increase human trafficking, sexual violence, underage drinking, and traffic dangers in the area.

The Tribunal found that the objectors' concerns were largely speculative and not supported by objective evidence.

The Tribunal concluded that the objectors failed to establish that issuing the licence was contrary to the public interest and ordered the Registrar to issue the licence without conditions.

The appellant sought an extension of time to appeal a Notice of Proposal to refuse his application for a horseperson licence under the Horse Racing Licence Act, 2015.

The Notice of Appeal was filed more than a year after the 15-day appeal period expired.

Applying the Manuel factors, the Tribunal found the appellant lacked a bona fide intention to appeal within the time limit, the delay was significant, granting the extension would prejudice the public interest, and the appeal lacked merit due to undisclosed criminal charges.

The motion to extend time was denied.

An added party brought a motion requesting the adjudicator recuse himself from hearing an appeal regarding a liquor licence application.

The motion was based on the adjudicator's membership on the Board of Governors of a university that opposed the application.

The adjudicator granted the motion, finding that an informed person would conclude his concurrent roles created a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The applicant appealed a Notice of Proposal to Review an Application for a Liquor Licence after residents objected to the application.

The objectors raised concerns about noise, violence, and intoxication based on the previous operation of a nightclub at the same premises by a different individual.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was not responsible for the previous operation, that the former operator would not be involved, and that the applicant intended to operate responsibly.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to issue the licence, subject to conditions prohibiting the former operator from having any involvement in the business.

The appellant applied for a liquor licence for its convenience store.

The Registrar issued a Notice of Proposal to Review the Application after receiving objections from local residents.

The sole objector who attended the hearing argued against the licence on public policy grounds, citing risks of drinking and driving and underage drinking.

The Tribunal found that the objector failed to establish that granting the licence was not in the public interest, noting the appellant's robust age verification policies and lack of prior infractions.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to issue the licence without conditions.

The appellant applied for a liquor licence for its convenience store.

The Registrar issued a Notice of Proposal to review the application after receiving objections from residents and the City of Hamilton.

The appellant appealed to the Licence Appeal Tribunal.

The added parties opposed the licence on public policy grounds and requested conditions if granted.

The Tribunal found that the objectors failed to establish that granting the licence was not in the public interest, noting the appellant's robust age verification program and lack of prior infractions.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to issue the licence without conditions.

The applicant, 7-Eleven Canada Inc., applied for a liquor licence for its convenience store in Hamilton.

The Registrar issued a Notice of Proposal to Review the application after receiving objections from local residents and the City of Hamilton.

The added parties argued that granting the licence was not in the public interest due to general policy concerns about alcohol in convenience stores and specific issues with loitering, garbage, and petty crime at the premises.

The Tribunal found that the objectors failed to establish that the licence was not in the public interest, noting the applicant's robust age verification program and recent steps taken to address neighbourhood concerns.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to issue the licence subject to conditions, including a 'Good Neighbour' sign, a contact sign for complaints, and exterior security cameras.

The applicant appealed a Notice of Proposal to Review an Application for a Liquor Licence for its convenience store in Brampton.

The City of Brampton opposed the licence, arguing it was not in the public interest having regard to the needs and wishes of the residents.

The Tribunal found that the City failed to provide direct evidence regarding the needs and wishes of the residents or the impact on the immediate community.

The Tribunal ordered the Registrar to issue the licence without conditions, noting that the applicant had sufficient policies and procedures in place to responsibly handle the sale of alcohol.