Tamara Brooks

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 Registrar of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario issued a Notice of Proposal to suspend the liquor licence of The Deck Inc. for alleged violations of the Liquor Licence Act and its regulations.

At the hearing, the parties submitted an Agreed Statement of Facts admitting that the licensee's rear fire exit door was locked with a deadbolt on two occasions, in violation of fire safety requirements.

The Board accepted the joint submission on disposition, suspending the liquor licence for 17 days and adding a condition requiring the licensee to provide access to all licensed areas for inspections.

The Registrar of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario issued a Notice of Proposal to suspend the respondent's liquor licence for permitting a drunk patron in the establishment.

The parties submitted an Agreed Statement of Facts and a Joint Submission on Disposition.

The Board found a violation of s. 45(1) of O.Reg 719/90 and ordered a 9-day suspension of the liquor licence.

At a pre-hearing conference, the Board considered two Notices of Proposal to suspend the liquor licence of Agogo Karaoke Inc. On consent of the parties, the Board ordered that the two matters be combined and proceed as a single hearing.

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

The parties submitted an Agreed Statement of Facts admitting that a minor was consuming alcohol in the licensed premises and the licensee failed to inspect their identification, contrary to the Liquor Licence Act and regulations.

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

The appellant, an investment advisor, appealed a decision of the Ontario Securities Commission that upheld a disciplinary ruling by the Investment Industry Regulatory Organization of Canada (IIROC).

IIROC had found the appellant engaged in conduct detrimental to the public interest by maintaining undisclosed financial interests in the accounts of two relatives, resulting in a permanent ban, a $350,000 fine, and $80,000 in costs.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Commission's decision reasonable, the reasons provided by IIROC adequate, and that the Commission properly afforded deference to the self-regulatory organization.

The applicant, an investment advisor, sought a stay of an Ontario Securities Commission decision dismissing his application for a hearing and review of an IIROC disciplinary decision.

The IIROC hearing panel had permanently banned the applicant and imposed a fine and costs for having undisclosed financial interests in client accounts.

The Commission considered the RJR MacDonald test for granting a stay pending appeal.

Finding that the Divisional Court was in a better position to determine the merits of the appeal and whether a stay should be granted, the Commission granted a short 60-day extension of the interim stay to allow the applicant to commence an appeal and bring a stay motion before the Divisional Court.

The applicant sought a hearing and review of a decision by the Ontario District Council of the Investment Industry Regulatory Organization of Canada (IIROC), which found he engaged in conduct unbecoming by having an undisclosed financial interest in client accounts.

The Ontario Securities Commission applied a restrained approach to reviewing the self-regulatory organization's decision, finding that the applicant failed to demonstrate that the District Council proceeded on an incorrect principle, erred in law, or overlooked material evidence.

The application was dismissed.