Tamara Brooks

The applicant, a corporate licensee operating a restaurant, applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal to remove security and camera conditions from its liquor licence.

The conditions had been imposed on the previous licensee.

The applicant argued that a change in circumstances, including new management, a shift to a family-focused operation, and the financial impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, justified the removal.

The Registrar consented to the application, noting the applicant's clean regulatory history and that the conditions were originally intended to address risks unrelated to the current applicant.

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

The applicant sought reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that found it lacked jurisdiction to hear an appeal of a Notice of Proposal to deny a liquor licence transfer.

The Tribunal had previously determined that because the underlying licence was revoked and the proposal withdrawn, there was no proposal to appeal.

On reconsideration, the adjudicator found no violation of procedural fairness, no error of law, and no false evidence, concluding that the Tribunal's jurisdiction is strictly limited by statute.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Licence Appeal Tribunal that found it breached capacity limits under the Liquor Licence Act and imposed a 15-day licence suspension.

The appellant conceded its patio was overcrowded but argued the Tribunal erred in law regarding the extent of the breach, reasons, fairness, and sanction.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Tribunal's decision reasonable, supported by reasons, and the 15-day suspension appropriate given previous similar infractions.

The applicant applied under s. 14(2) of the Liquor Licence Act to remove a condition from its liquor licence that restricted the sale and service of alcohol indoors after 11 p.m.

The condition had been imposed four years prior based on a consent agreement between the previous licensee and the City of Toronto.

At a case conference, the parties agreed that there had been a change in circumstances, and the City of Toronto confirmed it had no objection to the removal.

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

The appellant sought to appeal a Notice of Proposal to refuse the transfer of a liquor licence.

However, the licence in question had already been revoked because the original licence holder did not appeal a separate proposal to revoke it.

Following the revocation, the Registrar withdrew the proposal to refuse the transfer.

The Tribunal held that because there was no longer an existing licence to transfer and no outstanding proposal to refuse the transfer, it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant applied for a liquor sales licence for its restaurant.

A local resident and business owner objected, arguing that granting the licence was not in the public interest due to safety concerns, late-night disturbances near the premises, and prior municipal by-law infractions for smoking shisha.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the objector failed to establish on a balance of probabilities that granting the licence was contrary to the public interest, noting a lack of context connecting the street disturbances directly to the appellant's operations.

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

The applicant, the new owner of a licensed establishment, applied to remove a condition on its liquor licence that prohibited persons under 19 years of age from entering the premises.

The condition was imposed in 2006 under previous ownership due to underage drinking infractions.

The respondent consented to the removal, noting there had been no further infractions since the condition was imposed and none under the new ownership.

The Tribunal found a change in circumstances under s. 14(2) of the Act and ordered the condition removed.

The applicant sought to remove four conditions from its liquor licence regarding noise and entertainment, citing a change in circumstances since the conditions were imposed in 2000.

The respondent consented to the removal of the conditions, noting the absence of noise complaints and the applicant's evidence of community support for live music on statutory holiday weekends.

The Tribunal found a change in circumstances and ordered the removal of the existing conditions, replacing them with new conditions permitting live entertainment on Sundays and statutory holiday weekends.

The applicant, a new operator of a licensed establishment, applied to remove four conditions from its liquor licence that were imposed on a previous, unrelated operator in 2010.

The respondent agreed that there had been a change in circumstances and consented to the removal of the conditions, subject to the addition of a new condition requiring the applicant to maintain a telephone line with a message service for resident complaints.

The Tribunal found a change in circumstances and ordered the conditions removed and the new condition added on consent.

The applicant sought to remove a condition on its liquor licence that restricted the hours of sale and service of alcohol on its patio.

The condition had been imposed due to an objection from the former ward Councillor.

The applicant demonstrated a change in circumstances, as the new Councillor supported extending the hours and confirmed there were no complaints against the establishment.

The respondent consented to the application, and the Tribunal ordered the condition removed pursuant to section 14(2) of the Liquor Licence Act.

The applicant, owner of a licensed establishment, applied to remove several conditions attached to its liquor licence.

The establishment had shifted its operating focus from a nightclub to a concert hall and event venue.

Following discussions, the respondent agreed that the conditions were either outside the mandate of the AGCO, unenforceable, or mandated by statute.

The police also did not oppose the removal of the condition requiring off-duty officers.

The Tribunal found a change in circumstances and ordered the removal of all requested conditions.

The appellant applied for a liquor sales licence for a proposed restaurant and programmable art space in Kensington Market.

The Registrar issued a notice of proposal to review the application after receiving objections from residents, the City of Toronto, and the Friends of Kensington Market.

The objectors argued the licence was not in the public interest due to concerns about noise, disturbance, and increased traffic.

The Tribunal found that the objectors failed to establish that granting the licence was contrary to the public interest, noting the appellant's business model was less likely to cause disturbances than existing problematic establishments.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to issue the licence but attached conditions restricting hours of service and requiring signage, a contact number for residents, and exterior lighting to address community concerns.

The applicant, a licensed establishment, applied to remove a condition on its liquor licence that prohibited two individuals with prior bookmaking convictions from entering the premises.

The Tribunal found a change in circumstances, noting the individuals had no further criminal involvement, were engaged in community fundraising with the applicant, and the Registrar did not oppose the removal.

The application was granted and the condition was removed, while other conditions prohibiting their business involvement remained.

The applicant applied to remove conditions on its liquor licence restricting the hours of sale and service of alcohol.

The conditions were originally imposed due to objections from a neighbouring resident.

The applicant demonstrated a change in circumstances, specifically that the sole objector no longer resided next to the establishment.

The Registrar did not oppose the application given the lack of negative compliance history.

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

The applicant applied to remove seven conditions from its liquor licence, arguing a change in circumstances.

The Registrar conceded that most conditions were unenforceable or covered by other regulations.

A new Boulevard Cafe agreement with the City of Toronto addressed the remaining condition regarding hours of service.

On consent, the Tribunal found a change in circumstances and ordered the removal of all conditions.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Registrar of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission refusing to revoke a Direction to Exclude her from all Ontario gaming sites.

The exclusion was originally imposed due to findings that the applicant was involved in loan sharking at criminal rates of interest.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Registrar's decision reasonable given the gravity of the past conduct and the applicant's failure to demonstrate she appreciated the gravity of her actions or that there was no risk of reoccurrence.

The appellant appealed an order of the Licence Appeal Tribunal directing the revocation of its liquor licence.

The revocation was based on findings that the appellant permitted a patron to remove alcohol, permitted unlawful gambling, and that the manager obstructed and assaulted an inspector.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error of law in the Tribunal's assessment of the evidence or its application of the test under s. 6(2)(d) of the Liquor Licence Act.

The appellant requested a reconsideration of the Tribunal's decision to revoke its liquor licence.

The revocation was based on findings that the appellant's acting manager assaulted and obstructed a liquor inspector, and that the establishment permitted the removal of liquor and unlawful gambling.

The appellant argued the Tribunal made significant errors of law and fact.

The Tribunal dismissed the reconsideration request, finding no significant errors that would have altered the original decision, particularly given the serious public safety concerns raised by the manager's aggressive conduct toward the inspector.

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 Notice of Proposal to Revoke a Licence and an immediate suspension order issued by the Registrar of Alcohol, Gaming and Racing.

The Registrar alleged the licensee obstructed and assaulted a liquor inspector, permitted a patron to remove liquor from the premises, and permitted unlawful gambling (a football pool) on the premises.

The Tribunal found that the licensee's manager aggressively confronted and grabbed an inspector, failed to prevent a patron from leaving with alcohol, and ran an illegal football pool that did not pay out 100% of proceeds.

The Tribunal concluded the licensee's conduct afforded reasonable grounds for belief that the business would not be carried on in accordance with the law and with integrity and honesty.

The appeal was dismissed and the Registrar was ordered to carry out the revocation.