Richard Kulis

The Registrar of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario issued a Notice of Proposal to suspend and revoke the liquor licence of Shooters Sports Bar Inc. The parties proceeded by way of an Agreed Statement of Facts and Joint Submission on Disposition.

The licensee admitted to failing to clear signs of service and consumption of liquor after hours, and permitting drunkenness on the premises.

The Board accepted the joint submission and ordered a 13-day suspension of the liquor licence.

The Registrar issued a Notice of Proposal to suspend the brew on premise licence of the licensees.

Following an Agreed Statement of Facts, the licensees admitted to violations of Ontario Regulation 58/00, including failing to tag carboys, failing to provide invoices, and giving bottled wine to an inspector and police officer posing as customers.

The Board accepted a joint submission and ordered a 21-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 corporate licensee for selling and serving liquor outside of prescribed hours and failing to facilitate an inspection.

At the hearing, the licensee was self-represented and proceeded by way of an Agreed Statement of Facts and Joint Submission on Disposition.

The licensee admitted to selling and serving liquor at 10:49 a.m., contrary to s. 25(1) of O. Reg. 719/90.

The Registrar withdrew the remaining allegation.

The Board accepted the joint submission and ordered a 7-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 Funhaus Inc. for failing to clear signs of service and consumption within 45 minutes after the permitted period.

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

The licensee admitted to the violation.

The Board accepted the joint submission and ordered a 5-day suspension of the liquor licence.

The appellant brought a motion to vary a stay order regarding the revocation of its liquor licence, seeking permission to open its back patio during the summer.

The respondent Commission opposed the motion and brought a countermotion to lift the stay, alleging the appellant breached the conditions of the stay.

The court dismissed both motions, finding that the appellant's request to vary the conditions was not justified and that the Commission failed to prove the alleged breaches.

The court also ordered the parties to expedite the appeal.

The applicant sought judicial review to quash an order of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario that granted intervenor status to the Liquor Control Board of Ontario in two stay motions.

The stay motions were based on allegations of witness tampering by an LCBO employee and the improper distribution of transcripts.

The Divisional Court held that the standard of review was correctness and found that the Board erred in granting intervenor status.

The Court concluded that the LCBO had no interest in the stay motions and its intervention would introduce a distortion into the adversarial process.

The order granting standing to the LCBO was quashed.

The applicant brought an application to quash an order of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario that granted intervenor status to the Liquor Control Board of Ontario in two stay motions.

The stay motions were based on allegations of witness tampering by an LCBO employee.

The Divisional Court held that the Board's decision to grant intervenor status was incorrect, as the LCBO had no interest in the stay motions and its intervention would distort the adversarial process.

The order granting standing to the LCBO was quashed.

The applicants sought judicial review of orders made by the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario directing that a hearing proceed in camera and restricting the attendance of counsel for interested persons.

The Divisional Court quashed the orders, emphasizing that the Statutory Powers Procedure Act and the common law strongly favour open hearings.

The Court found that the Board failed to consider less restrictive measures to address its concerns regarding the presence of counsel while witnesses were excluded.

The applicant sought judicial review of three orders made by a panel of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario that directed a hearing to proceed in camera and excluded counsel for interested persons.

The Divisional Court quashed the orders, emphasizing that section 9(1) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act and the common law strongly favour open hearings.

The Court found that the Board failed to consider less restrictive measures to address its concerns regarding the presence of counsel while witnesses were excluded.