Tamara Brooks

The appellant applied for a liquor licence for a beauty salon and spa.

The City of Toronto filed a blanket objection to all liquor licence applications unless the applicant met certain conditions, but called no evidence specific to the appellant's application.

The Tribunal found that a municipal resolution alone, without specific evidence, is not persuasive enough to prove that issuing the licence is contrary to the public interest.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to approve the application.

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

The City of Toronto filed a pro forma objection based on a municipal policy requiring applicants to complete a specific training program and obtain a letter of support from their local MPP, prompting a public interest review by the AGCO.

At the hearing, the City led no evidence to demonstrate that issuing the licence would be contrary to the public interest, acknowledging that the required training program no longer existed and MPPs were instructed not to provide such letters.

The Tribunal found the objector failed to meet its onus and directed the Registrar to approve the application.

The appellant, operating a licensed establishment, applied to remove two conditions from its liquor licence prohibiting amplified sound causing audible noise to residential buildings after 11 p.m. and prohibiting cover charges.

The appellant argued that a change in its business model from a board game cafe to an evening bar constituted a change in circumstances justifying the removal.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the conditions were originally negotiated for public interest reasons to mitigate noise and social consequences in the community.

The Tribunal held that the appellant failed to demonstrate a change in circumstances supporting the removal of the conditions and that their removal was not in the public interest.

The Registrar's proposal to refuse the application was upheld.

The Appellant applied for a liquor sales licence for an outdoor patio at its pub.

Several local residents and a condominium corporation objected, citing concerns about noise, disruptive behaviour, and traffic.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the objectors' concerns regarding disruptive behaviour and traffic were speculative and unsupported by evidence.

Relying on expert acoustical evidence, the Tribunal concluded that the patio noise would likely comply with municipal bylaws and not disturb residents.

The Tribunal approved the application subject to conditions, including an 11 p.m. closing time and a prohibition on outdoor music.

The applicant brought a motion for an extension of time to appeal the revocation of its liquor licence.

The applicant missed the 15-day deadline to appeal after being served with a Notice of Proposal to revoke the licence due to multiple breaches of conditions, including allowing a prohibited individual on the premises.

Applying the four-factor test from Frey v. MacDonald, the Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove reasonable grounds for the extension.

The Tribunal noted the applicant's history of non-compliance, lack of merit to the appeal, and that the justice of the case favoured the public interest.

The motion was dismissed.

The applicant appealed a Notice of Proposal by the Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming to review an application for a liquor sales licence due to written objections.

At the hearing, the applicant and the added party municipality agreed on conditions to attach to the licence, and the Registrar took no position.

The objectors did not attend.

The Tribunal approved the application subject to the agreed conditions, which included operating as a restaurant, noise control, and not operating as a nightclub.

The applicant appealed a Notice of Proposal by the Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming regarding an application for additional licensed areas at Fynn's of Temple Bar.

Following a pre-hearing, the Licence Appeal Tribunal approved the application subject to conditions, including restrictions on amplified sound and notification requirements for future condition removal applications.

The applicant appealed a Notice of Proposal by the Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming regarding a liquor licence application.

Following a pre-hearing, the applicant and public interest objectors agreed to a set of conditions to attach to the licence.

The objectors withdrew their objections, and the Tribunal approved the liquor licence application subject to the agreed-upon conditions.

The applicant appealed an Order of Monetary Penalty issued by the Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming.

At the hearing, the Registrar advised that further information had been made available and the Order of Monetary Penalty was withdrawn.

The Tribunal concluded the matter and closed the file.

The Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming proposed to suspend the applicant's liquor licence for 14 days for permitting drunkenness in the licensed establishment.

The applicant appealed but failed to attend the hearing, which proceeded ex parte.

Based on uncontested police evidence that two patrons were visibly intoxicated and that the establishment's staff ought reasonably to have known of their condition, the Licence Appeal Tribunal found a contravention of subsection 45(1) of O. Reg. 719/90.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to carry out the 14-day suspension.

The applicant appealed an Order of Monetary Penalty issued by the Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming for a contravention of section 43 of Ontario Regulation 719/90 under the Liquor Licence Act.

The dispute centered on whether the applicant's patio exceeded its licensed capacity of 214 patrons during an inspection.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the AGCO inspectors, who conducted actual counts, over the estimates provided by the applicant's staff.

The Tribunal found on a balance of probabilities that the patio was over capacity and confirmed the monetary penalty.

The Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming issued a Notice of Proposal to suspend the applicant's liquor licence, alleging the licensee permitted drunkenness on the premises.

The allegations stemmed from an incident where inspectors observed an intoxicated female patron who was later arrested for impaired driving.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found insufficient evidence that the patron exhibited behaviour that should have alerted the licensee's staff to her intoxication prior to the inspectors' intervention.

The Tribunal concluded the Registrar failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that the licensee knew or ought to have known the patron was drunk, and directed the Registrar not to carry out the proposal.

The Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming issued a Notice of Proposal to suspend the applicant's liquor licence for 10 days for permitting minors to consume liquor and failing to inspect identification.

The Tribunal previously found the applicant breached subsections 30(4) and 41(1) of O. Reg. 719/90.

In this decision on sanction, the Tribunal considered the seriousness of the contraventions, the lack of prior infractions, and the applicant's remedial actions.

The Tribunal ordered a six-day suspension of the liquor licence to achieve specific and general deterrence.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Board of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario refusing its application for a liquor licence.

The Divisional Court found the Board's decision unreasonable because, although it correctly stated the onus was on the objectors to prove the licence was against the public interest, it failed to apply that test and balance the evidence.

The appeal was allowed, the decision set aside, and the matter remitted for a new hearing.

The Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming issued a Notice of Proposal to revoke the applicant's liquor licence.

During the hearing, the applicant's agent requested an adjournment because the applicant's principal was hospitalized and had not yet retained legal representation.

The respondent noted outstanding disclosure issues and its intention to issue a further amended Notice of Proposal.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, setting a peremptory hearing date and establishing deadlines for the respondent to serve any amended Notice of Proposal and motion materials.

The applicant brought a motion to adjourn the hearing of its appeal of a Notice of Proposal to suspend its liquor licence.

The adjournment was requested because the applicant had appealed a previous Tribunal decision to the Divisional Court involving similar issues of law regarding the interpretation of section 45(1) of Ontario Regulation 719/90.

The respondent consented to the adjournment.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment on consent, subject to conditions ensuring the timely perfection of the Divisional Court appeal.

The applicant appealed an Order of Monetary Penalty issued by the Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming for alleged contraventions of the Liquor Licence Act and its regulations.

At the commencement of the hearing, the Registrar withdrew the order because its key witness was unable to attend.

The Tribunal noted the withdrawal and concluded the matter.

The Registrar of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario imposed a $6,000 monetary penalty on the applicant licensee for allegedly permitting drunkenness and failing to ensure reasonable measures regarding disorderly conduct.

The Registrar abandoned the disorderly conduct allegation at the hearing.

The Tribunal found that while a patron was intoxicated outside the bar, there was no evidence regarding her state or interaction with staff while inside the premises.

Applying the test from 1213963 Ontario Ltd., the Tribunal concluded there was insufficient evidence that the licensee knew or ought to have known of the drunkenness.

The monetary penalty was set aside.

The Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming issued a Notice of Proposal to suspend the applicant's liquor licence for 14 days.

The Tribunal previously found the applicant breached the Liquor Licence Act regulations by permitting minors to consume liquor, permitting drunkenness, and failing to maintain control over the premises.

After considering the serious nature of the infractions and the applicant's positive compliance history, the Tribunal ordered a 12-day suspension of the liquor licence.

The applicant brought a motion before a panel of the Divisional Court to set aside a decision of a single judge who declined to grant an interlocutory injunction preventing the enforcement of conditions on a liquor licence.

The applicant also sought to admit fresh evidence.

The court dismissed the motion to admit fresh evidence, finding it would not have affected the outcome.

Applying the Housen standard of review, the court found the single judge made no error in applying the RJR-MacDonald test for interlocutory injunctive relief.

The motion was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondents on a substantial indemnity basis.