Rena Khan

The appellant appealed a Notice of Proposal to Review an Application for a Liquor Licence.

An added party objected to the issuance of the licence, citing concerns about the proximity to schools, poverty, and crime in the neighbourhood.

The Tribunal found that the added party failed to prove that issuing the licence was not in the public interest, noting the appellant's compliance plans and training.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to issue the licence subject to a single condition agreed upon by the parties requiring signage asking patrons to keep outdoor noise to a minimum.

The applicant applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal to remove a condition on its liquor licence that was originally imposed by the Board of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission in 2010.

The Tribunal found that it has jurisdiction under section 11(4) of the Liquor Licence and Control Act, 2019 to remove conditions imposed by its predecessor adjudicative body.

As the original objectors had not received notice of the application, the Tribunal issued a consent order directing the Registrar to issue a Notice of Proposal to Refuse to Remove the Condition, allowing the applicant to appeal and ensuring all interested parties could participate in a full hearing.

The applicant applied for a liquor sales licence for premises in Leamington.

The Municipality of Leamington objected, arguing that the applicant was acting in concert with the property owner, who had a significant history of non-compliance with municipal and provincial laws, including fire safety violations.

The Registrar issued a Notice of Proposal to Review, and the applicant requested a hearing.

The Tribunal found that while the property owner's past compliance record was poor, the evidence was insufficient to prove on a balance of probabilities that the applicant and the property owner were acting in concert.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to issue the licence.

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

The City of Toronto objected on general public policy grounds regarding the harms of alcohol, calling a city councillor to testify.

The Tribunal found that the objector failed to establish that issuing the licence for this specific location was not in the public interest, as the evidence focused on general alcohol policy rather than the specific premises.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to issue the licence without the conditions requested by the City.

7-Eleven applied for a liquor sales licence for a portion of its convenience store in Toronto.

Several local residents objected, raising concerns about underage drinking, intoxicated customers, and neighborhood disruption.

The Registrar issued a proposal to review the application, and 7-Eleven requested a hearing.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that while the objectors raised valid concerns, 7-Eleven's compliance plan and the legal requirements under the Liquor Licence and Control Act adequately mitigated the risks.

The Tribunal concluded that the objectors failed to establish that issuing the licence was not in the public interest and directed the Registrar to issue the licence.

7-Eleven applied for a liquor sales licence for on-premises consumption at its Sarnia convenience store.

The Registrar issued a proposal to review the application after receiving objections from local residents.

The objectors argued that selling alcohol in a convenience store with gas pumps would increase public harm, drinking and driving, and exacerbate existing neighbourhood issues like loitering and petty crime.

The Tribunal found that while the residents' concerns were legitimate, they were adequately mitigated by 7-Eleven's compliance plan, which included restricted hours, small capacity, and mandatory food purchases with alcohol.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to issue the licence subject to conditions, including restricted hours of sale and posting contact information for resident complaints.

The appellant applied for a liquor licence for its premises.

Following objections from residents and the municipality, the Registrar issued a Notice of Proposal to review the application.

At the hearing, the municipality and the appellant agreed to specific conditions regarding operating hours, noise signage, and a contact number for complaints.

The Registrar withdrew its Notice of Proposal based on this agreement.

The Tribunal found that the objectors failed to prove that issuing the licence was not in the public interest and directed the Registrar to issue the licence subject to the agreed conditions.

The appellant applied for a liquor licence for its 7-Eleven convenience store.

The Registrar issued a Notice of Proposal to review the application after receiving objections from community members, primarily union members opposed to the private sale of alcohol in convenience stores.

The objectors argued that licensing the premises would increase community harms such as underage drinking and intoxicated driving.

The Tribunal found that the objectors' concerns were speculative, general in nature, and unsupported by objective evidence specific to the premises.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to issue the licence without conditions, concluding that the objectors failed to establish that issuing the licence was not in the public interest.

Ten X Toronto Inc. brought a motion to be added as a party to an appeal regarding the proposed revocation of a liquor licence held by 1938334 Ontario Inc. Ten X argued that it owned and occupied the premises covered by the licence and could not obtain its own liquor licence until the appellant's licence was revoked.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that Ten X had a significant interest in the appeal and that its substantive rights would be affected by the outcome.

The motion was granted on consent of the appellant and with no position taken by the respondent.

The applicant, a licensed establishment operating as a restaurant, applied to remove a condition on its liquor licence that prohibited amplified music or sound from emanating from within the premises or on the café.

The condition was originally imposed in 2005 due to objections from nearby residents when the establishment operated as a sports bar.

The applicant argued that it had pivoted to an upscale Greek restaurant due to the COVID-19 pandemic and that music was integral to the dining experience.

The Registrar took no position.

After the applicant attempted to contact the original objectors with minimal response, the Tribunal found a change in circumstances and ordered the removal of the condition.

The applicant, operating a licensed establishment in Wasaga Beach, applied to remove two conditions from its liquor licence that prohibited live music, dancing, and parties on its patio.

The conditions were imposed in 2011 following an objection by a neighboring business owner who no longer owns that business.

The applicant argued that Covid-19 restrictions made the patio the primary serving area and that the conditions were ambiguous and outdated.

The Registrar took no position.

The Tribunal found a change in circumstances and ordered the removal of the conditions pursuant to s. 14(2) of the Liquor Licence Act.

The appellant appealed a proposal by the Registrar to refuse her registration as a gaming assistant under the Gaming Control Act, 1992.

The Registrar based the refusal on the appellant's attendance at an illegal gaming house and her failure to disclose a past criminal charge and police investigation on her application.

The Tribunal found that the appellant knowingly attended an illegal gaming house on several occasions, demonstrating a willingness to contravene the law regarding legal gambling.

The Tribunal concluded there were reasonable grounds to believe she would not act as a gaming assistant in accordance with the law, integrity, honesty, or the public interest, and confirmed the Registrar's proposal to refuse registration.

The appellant appealed an Order of Monetary Penalty imposing two penalties: $10,000 for permitting disorderly conduct and $15,000 for failing to facilitate an inspection.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant's principal was aggressive and uncooperative during an after-hours inspection, failing to facilitate it in violation of s. 45(2) of the Liquor Licence Act.

However, the Tribunal found insufficient evidence that the licensee permitted the disorderly conduct of patrons under s. 45(1) of the Regulation.

The $15,000 penalty was confirmed, and the $10,000 penalty was set aside.

The appellant applied for a liquor sales licence for a concession-style bistro in a park.

Following significant objections from neighbourhood residents, the Registrar issued a proposal to review the application.

During the hearing, two of the added parties reached a side agreement with the appellant and the property owner, withdrawing their objections.

The third added party also withdrew.

Consequently, the Registrar withdrew its proposal and agreed to issue the licence on consent with specific conditions regarding noise and a contact number for complaints.

The applicant sought to remove a condition from its liquor licence that required it to notify specific objectors prior to any application to transfer the licence.

The condition was imposed in 2002.

The applicant demonstrated that the original objectors no longer resided at their previous addresses, and the respondent agreed that there had been a change in circumstances and that it no longer sought to impose such conditions.

The Tribunal found a change in circumstances and ordered the condition removed.

The applicant, a family-run restaurant, applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal to remove a condition on its liquor licence that restricted the sale and service of alcohol past midnight.

The applicant argued that the restriction put it at a competitive disadvantage and that the economic impact of the Covid-19 pandemic constituted a change in circumstances.

The Tribunal found that the change in the competitive landscape and the pandemic's impact satisfied the requirement for a change in circumstances.

Relying on strong support from immediate neighbours, the Tribunal concluded that removing the condition was in the public interest and ordered its removal.

The appellant applied to remove conditions on its liquor licence that restricted live/amplified music and the hours of sale and service of alcohol on its rooftop patio.

The Registrar issued a Proposal to refuse the removal, citing insufficient evidence of a change in circumstances.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant had established a change in circumstances through a change in ownership and business model, physical alterations to reduce noise, a change in the competitive environment, and increased community support.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar not to carry out its proposal, effectively removing the conditions.

The applicant applied under s. 14(2) of the Liquor Licence Act to remove four conditions from its liquor licence, citing a change in circumstances since the licence was granted in 2000.

The respondent agreed that three conditions were unenforceable and took no position on the application.

The Tribunal found a change in circumstances, noting that the local community council had extended operating hours without patio music restrictions, the streetscape had changed significantly, and no public objections were received after notice was posted.

The Tribunal ordered the removal of the conditions.

The appellant, a licensed establishment, applied to expand its indoor liquor licensed area.

Two objectors, a commercial condominium corporation and a neighbouring unit owner, opposed the application, citing non-compliance with condominium by-laws and concerns about noise, litter, and disorderly crowds.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the objectors failed to establish on a balance of probabilities that granting the licence was not in the public interest.

However, acknowledging evidence of occasional late-night disorderly conduct outside the premises, the Tribunal directed the Registrar to approve the application subject to conditions, including a reduced capacity limit, security requirements, and noise signage.

The Registrar of Alcohol, Gaming and Racing issued Notices of Proposal to refuse to renew the liquor sales licence of UFO KTV Inc. and to refuse to transfer that licence to MYST KTV.

The Registrar alleged numerous violations of the Liquor Licence Act and its regulations over an eight-month period, including serving minors, overcrowding, permitting drug use, and failing to post a suspension sign.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that multiple violations occurred and that the licensee's past conduct afforded reasonable grounds for belief that it would not carry on business in accordance with the law and with integrity and honesty.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to carry out the proposal to refuse to renew the licence, rendering the transfer application moot.