Rena Khan

The appellant applied for a liquor licence for a premises operating as Rebel and Cabana Pool Bar, seeking increased capacity and fewer restrictions than the previous licence.

The Registrar issued a Notice of Proposal to Review the Application, and several community groups objected, primarily citing noise disturbances from the outdoor patio.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that while the indoor capacity increase was in the public interest, the outdoor capacity increase and the playing of amplified music outdoors were not, due to the significant noise impact on the Toronto Island community.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to issue the licence subject to strict conditions, including a prohibition on amplified music directed towards any outdoor area and a reduced outdoor capacity.

The appellant applied for registration as a gaming supplier under the Gaming Control Act, 1992.

The Registrar proposed to refuse the registration based on the past conduct of the appellant's director, which included numerous Highway Traffic Act convictions, a criminal charge for assault, and convictions for failing to comply with court orders.

The director also failed to disclose these offences in the application materials and provided false information during an interview.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the director's past conduct and lack of candour provided reasonable grounds to believe he would not act in accordance with the law, honesty, and integrity.

The Tribunal ordered the Registrar to carry out the refusal.

The appellants, owners of a karaoke bar, brought a motion to adjourn their hearing regarding the refusal to renew and transfer a liquor sales licence.

The appellants argued they needed more time to prepare.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment request, finding the appellants had sufficient time to prepare since filing their appeal six months prior and retaining a representative two months prior.

The Tribunal also noted that granting an adjournment would seriously prejudice the respondent, as a key witness would be unavailable after April 2018.

Following a hearing regarding a liquor licence application, the appellant brought a motion for costs against two community groups that had been granted added party status.

The appellant argued the added parties' conduct was unreasonable, vexatious, and in bad faith.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the conduct of all parties was respectful throughout the proceeding and that advocating for a position, even erroneously, does not constitute unreasonable conduct under Rule 19.

The Tribunal emphasized that significant leeway must be given to self-represented parties to maintain accessibility and fairness.

The appellant applied for a liquor licence for a hair salon and restaurant.

Local residents and community associations objected, raising concerns about noise, crime, and the proliferation of nightclubs in the area.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the objectors failed to establish that granting the licence was contrary to the public interest, as the concerns related to the general area rather than the specific establishment.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to issue the licence, subject to conditions restricting patio music after 9:00 p.m. and requiring signage asking patrons to respect neighbours.

The appellant requested to bring a motion for costs following the conclusion of the hearing on the merits.

The Tribunal issued an order setting the timetable for the parties to serve and file their written submissions, evidence, and case law regarding the costs motion.

The Registrar of Alcohol, Gaming and Racing ordered a $6,000 monetary penalty against the appellant establishment for allegedly serving alcohol to three minors.

The appellant appealed the order.

The Tribunal found that the Registrar's case relied entirely on uncorroborated hearsay evidence from inspectors who spoke to the minors, who had demonstrably lied about their identification and contact information.

Preferring the direct testimony of the server who denied serving the minors, the Tribunal concluded there was insufficient evidence that alcohol was sold, served, or consumed by the minors.

The monetary penalty was set aside.

The appellant appealed a 40-day liquor licence suspension imposed by the Licence Appeal Tribunal for selling alcohol to intoxicated patrons and permitting drunkenness, following two separate incidents where patrons left the establishment and were later found suffering from hypothermia (one fatally).

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no errors of law in the Tribunal's assessment of evidence, no procedural unfairness from an incomplete recording of the hearing, and no error in principle regarding the sanction imposed.

The moving parties, added as parties to an appeal of a Notice of Proposal to review a liquor licence application, brought a motion for disclosure of the appellant's corporate structure and past records of noise complaints.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the Registrar's Notice of Proposal was based solely on the public interest provision of the Liquor Licence Act, not on past conduct.

Therefore, the requested documents were not relevant to the issues in dispute.

The Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming proposed to suspend the appellant's liquor licence for 30 days.

The appellant admitted to several violations of the Regulation, including overcrowding and failure to clear signs of service.

The remaining issues were whether the appellant permitted drunkenness on its premises on two separate dates.

The Tribunal found that the appellant permitted drunkenness on September 13, 2015, as the patron was visibly intoxicated and the appellant failed to take action until prompted by inspectors.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the allegation for January 31, 2016, due to insufficient evidence that the appellant knew or ought to have known of the patron's drunkenness.

Written submissions on sanction were requested.

The Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming issued a Notice of Proposed Order to revoke the appellant's registration as a gaming supplier (seller of lottery products).

The appellant's principal admitted to failing to disclose charges, convictions, and judgment debts on the renewal application, and had a history of regulatory non-compliance and outstanding debts.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant's past conduct afforded reasonable grounds to believe it would not act in accordance with the law, integrity, and honesty.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to carry out the proposal to revoke the registration.

The Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming imposed a monetary penalty on the appellant establishment for allegedly permitting drunkenness, contrary to s. 45(1) of O. Reg. 719/90 under the Liquor Licence Act.

The appellant appealed to the Licence Appeal Tribunal.

The Tribunal found that while a patron was drunk, the establishment's manager acted reasonably by cutting off alcohol service, removing alcohol from the room, and allowing the patron to wait inside for a safe ride home rather than forcing him outside in the cold.

The Tribunal concluded the appellant did not permit drunkenness and ordered the monetary penalty set aside.

The appellants appealed the Registrar's proposals to refuse and revoke their gaming supplier registrations.

The Registrar's proposals were based on the appellants' failure to disclose criminal and provincial offence charges, including possession of unmarked cigarettes, on their registration and renewal applications.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellants' past conduct provided reasonable grounds to believe they would not act as suppliers in accordance with law, integrity, honesty, or the public interest.

The appeals were dismissed and the Registrar was directed to carry out the proposals.

The Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming issued a Notice of Proposal to suspend the appellant's liquor licence for 14 days due to multiple alleged infractions.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the licensee breached several provisions of the Liquor Licence Act and its regulations, including failing to supervise the sale and service of liquor, permitting an underage person to consume liquor without checking identification, permitting drunkenness on the premises, overcrowding, and failing to comply with the Fire Protection and Prevention Act.

The Tribunal ordered written submissions on the appropriate sanction.

The appellant appealed an Order of Monetary Penalty of $1,000 issued by the Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming for allegedly permitting drunkenness on her premises.

The Registrar's inspector and police officers concluded a patron was intoxicated based on his slurred speech, unsteadiness, and loud behaviour.

However, the patron testified that his behaviour was due to physical disabilities from past accidents and his lack of a hearing aid.

The Tribunal found the patron's evidence credible and corroborated by video surveillance, concluding the Registrar failed to establish on a balance of probabilities that the patron was drunk.

The Order of Monetary Penalty was set aside.

The Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming proposed to suspend the Appellant's liquor licence for 60 days, alleging the establishment served liquor to two patrons who were or appeared intoxicated and permitted drunkenness.

One patron was later found dead from hypothermia, and the other was found unconscious in a snowbank.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal reviewed extensive witness testimony, video evidence, and expert toxicology reports.

The Tribunal found that both patrons were served alcohol while they were or appeared to be intoxicated, and that the establishment failed to properly monitor them, thereby permitting drunkenness.

The Tribunal concluded the Appellant contravened the Liquor Licence Act and its regulations, and invited submissions on penalty.

The appellant applied for additional licensed capacity under the Liquor Licence Act.

Several resident objectors initially opposed the application.

Prior to the hearing, the appellant reached a private agreement with the spokesperson for the majority of the objectors, who then withdrew their objections.

The remaining objectors did not attend the hearing.

The Registrar took no position on the application.

The Tribunal approved the application for additional licensed capacity, directing the Registrar to issue the licence subject to usual requirements, noting that the private agreement terms would not be conditions on the licence.

The Appellant applied for a liquor sales licence for a multi-purpose event and music venue known as the Matador, initially requesting a capacity of 804 persons, later reduced to 650.

The Registrar issued a Notice of Proposal to review the application after receiving numerous objections from local residents and the City of Toronto, who raised concerns about noise, traffic, and vandalism based largely on the property's history as an illegal after-hours club.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the objectors' concerns were overly speculative and not objectively supported, given the Appellant's extensive mitigation plans regarding security, patron flow, and soundproofing.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to approve the licence, subject to conditions including a midnight restriction on the sale and service of alcohol from Sunday through Wednesday, security cameras, and lighting.

The appellant was found to have contravened s. 55(1) of O.Reg. 719 by failing to ensure an AGCO suspension placard remained posted during a suspension period.

The Registrar sought a 14-day suspension, while the appellant proposed a 10-day suspension.

The Tribunal found both proposals excessive, noting the appellant had closed its premises during the suspension and the placard had fallen off the door, possibly due to structural issues.

The Tribunal ordered a 2-day suspension.

The Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming proposed to suspend the appellant's liquor licence for 14 days for failing to ensure a suspension sign remained posted throughout a prior suspension period, contrary to subsection 55(1) of Ontario Regulation 719/90.

The appellant argued the sign was posted but fell off while the premises were closed.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant failed to ensure the sign remained posted at all times during the suspension period, as the premises were unattended and the sign was found on the floor.

The Tribunal concluded the appellant contravened the regulation and invited written submissions on penalty.