Richard E. Kulis

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 appealed a decision of the Board of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission suspending its liquor licence for 14 days for permitting drunkenness.

The appellant raised several grounds of appeal, including allegations of procedural fairness, improper admission of evidence, incorrect burden of proof, improper adverse inference, and failure to provide adequate reasons.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no merit to any of the grounds and concluding that the Board's reasons, while sparse, were sufficient.

The applicant sought an interim injunction to stay conditions on a liquor licence that barred him from any connection with the licensed business, pending the hearing of his application.

The licensee had previously consented to these conditions.

The court applied the RJR-MacDonald test and dismissed the motion, finding that the applicant failed to demonstrate irreparable harm and that the balance of convenience favoured maintaining the conditions due to the applicant's past history of non-compliance with liquor licensing laws.

The applicant sought judicial review to quash a Direction to Exclude issued by the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario.

The applicant argued that the Board lacked jurisdiction, breached procedural fairness by not holding an oral hearing, and made an unreasonable decision based on inadmissible evidence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the applicant had previously agreed to the rescission of an earlier direction and to proceed by written submissions.

The court held that the standard of review was reasonableness and that the Board's decision was reasonable given that the core allegations were undisputed.

The Registrar of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario issued Notices of Proposal to suspend and revoke the liquor licence of the respondent licensee.

The parties submitted an Agreed Statement of Facts admitting that a patron was allowed to enter with a gun and fired shots, intoxicated patrons were permitted on the premises, and the licensee failed to comply with a security condition.

The Board accepted the joint submission and ordered a 60-day suspension of the liquor licence.

The Registrar of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission appealed a Divisional Court decision that overturned five findings of liquor licence infractions by the respondent restaurant and reduced its licence suspension.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, finding that the Divisional Court erred by reassessing findings of mixed fact and law regarding three infractions, including encouraging immoderate consumption and serving an intoxicated patron.

The Court of Appeal also held that the Divisional Court breached natural justice by imposing a new penalty without hearing submissions.

A 14-day licence suspension was substituted.

The Registrar of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario issued Notices of Proposal to suspend the respondent's liquor licence for alleged violations of the Liquor Licence Act and its regulations.

The parties submitted an Agreed Statement of Facts admitting that the licensee permitted unlawful gambling (poker games) and a drunken patron on the premises.

The Board accepted the joint submission and ordered a 15-day suspension of the liquor licence.

The appellants sought to proceed with an appeal regarding the Divisional Court's decision to admit fresh evidence, despite acknowledging the case was moot because the facility had been sold and new liquor licences were being issued with the consent of formerly objecting residents.

The Court of Appeal declined to hear the appeal, finding no live controversy remained and the respondent had no interest in the issue.

The appeal was dismissed as moot with no costs awarded.

The respondent sought costs of a one-day appeal on a substantial indemnity basis in the amount of $76,138.70.

The court found no basis for substantial indemnity costs as there was no misconduct by the appellant.

The court also found the 193.7 hours claimed by the respondent's four lawyers to be excessive for a case of moderate complexity.

Costs were fixed at $25,000 inclusive of GST and disbursements.

The Registrar of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario issued a Notice of Proposal to suspend the liquor licence of the Balmer Motor Hotel.

The parties submitted an Agreed Statement of Facts admitting that drunken patrons were permitted on the licensed premises on two occasions, in violation of subsection 45(1) of Ontario Regulation 719/90.

The Board accepted the Joint Submission on Disposition and ordered a 19-day suspension of the liquor licence.

The applicant brought a motion to stay a Board decision granting a liquor license to a large nightclub pending appeal.

The applicant argued that the influx of patrons would jeopardize public safety in the entertainment district.

The court applied the RJR-Macdonald test and found a serious issue to be tried, but concluded the applicant failed to establish irreparable harm, as the safety concerns were speculative and subject to other regulatory regimes.

The balance of convenience favoured the respondent due to substantial financial investments.

The motion for a stay was dismissed.

The Registrar of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario issued a Notice of Proposal to suspend the liquor licence of Finnigan's Restaurant for permitting a drunken patron on the premises.

The parties submitted an Agreed Statement of Facts admitting the violation of subsection 45(1) of Ontario Regulation 719/90.

The Board accepted the Joint Submission on Disposition and ordered a 7-day suspension of the establishment's liquor licence.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario revoking its liquor licence.

The Divisional Court admitted fresh evidence regarding noise issues that had the potential to fundamentally alter the Board's conclusion on the public interest.

Consequently, the Court set aside the Board's order and remitted the matter to a differently constituted Board for a new hearing, with interim conditions imposed on the appellant's operations.

The Registrar issued a Notice of Proposal to suspend and revoke the liquor licence of the respondent establishment for permitting drunkenness, overcrowding, and serving an intoxicated person.

The parties proceeded by way of an Agreed Statement of Facts and Joint Submission on Disposition.

The Board accepted the joint submission, finding violations of the Liquor Licence Act and its regulations, and ordered a 28-day suspension of the liquor licence.

The Registrar of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario issued a Notice of Proposal to suspend the liquor licence of the respondent.

The parties proceeded by way of an Agreed Statement of Facts and Joint Submission on Disposition.

The respondent admitted to permitting drunken patrons on the premises and failing to clear signs of service and consumption within 45 minutes after the end of the service period.

The Board accepted the joint submission and ordered a 14-day suspension of the liquor licence.

The appellant resort appealed a Board decision suspending its liquor licence for seven days for allegedly serving an intoxicated person and permitting drunkenness.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal and set aside the Board's decision.

The Court found no evidence that the appellant's employees supplied liquor to the intoxicated patron, noting the drinks were ordered by another guest.

Furthermore, the Court held the Board failed to properly interpret 'permitted drunkenness', as the appellant's staff had taken reasonable steps to deny service and remove the patron shortly after her arrival.

The City of Toronto sought judicial review of a decision by the Board of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario denying the City party status in a hearing regarding the revocation and transfer of a liquor licence.

The City argued it was entitled to party status to represent the public interest due to concerns about illegal activities at the licensed premises.

The Divisional Court determined the standard of review was correctness, but found the Board did not err in its decision.

The Court held that the Board reasonably exercised its discretion, noting that the City's evidence and concerns would be adequately presented through the Registrar and the evidentiary weight of the municipal resolution.

The applicant brought a motion to stay proceedings before the Alcohol and Gaming Commission, alleging that its witnesses had been interfered with by their supervisor.

During an adjournment, the LCBO retained an investigator to interview the witnesses.

The applicant sought to compel the investigator's attendance and the production of witness statements to support its stay motion.

The Commission refused to issue the summons, finding the evidence irrelevant.

On judicial review, the Divisional Court held that the Commission breached natural justice by precluding the applicant from leading material evidence.

The Court ordered the Commission to issue a summons for the investigator and require the production of the witness statements, finding they were not protected by solicitor-client or litigation privilege.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Deputy Registrar of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission refusing a temporary extension of its liquor licence for the Taste of the Danforth event.

The Deputy Registrar had previously recommended revoking the applicant's licence due to alleged infractions and relied on this to deny the extension.

The court found the Deputy Registrar confused her prosecutorial role with her discretionary role under s. 97 of Regulation 719.

The decision was quashed and remitted for a new decision.