|
Vice - Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario (AGCO). Registrar, Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario v. Two-Four-Seven Lounge and Restaurant Inc.
In Registrar, Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario v. Two-Four-Seven Lounge and Restaurant Inc. (Ont Divisional Ct, 2025) the Divisional Court dismissed a JR, here where the "Registrar, Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario (the “Registrar” and “AGCO”) seeks judicial review of the decision and reconsideration decision of the Licence Appeal Tribunal (the “LAT” or the “Tribunal”)".
The court reviews the concept of 'public interest', here in a liquor licensing context:[6] Given this, the LAT held that the Registrar had met its onus of proving that there were reasonable and probable ground for believing that the Licencee will not carry on business in accordance with the law and with integrity and honesty. However, rather than revoking the Licencee’s licence, the LAT found that the public interest could be satisfied by imposing a 30-day suspension of the Licencee’s licence with terms and conditions.
....
[9] The Registrar seeks judicial review of the LAT’s decisions on the basis that they are unreasonable, for three reasons:1. The LAT’s reliance on the public interest is unjustifiable in the context of the Act;
2. The LAT failed to provide an explanation as to what it meant by the “public interest”, which is an amorphous term with multiple meanings; and
3. The LAT’s decisions fail to reveal a rational chain of analysis because the LAT used the notion of public interest to give Mr. Balogun a second chance. The public interest is meant to cover the interests of society broadly and not the interests of any one individual or business. ....
[11] I disagree with the Registrar’s submissions that the LAT’s decisions were unreasonable and could not be justified in the context of the Act. The Act, like many licencing statutes that regulate businesses, requires that those businesses not be conducted in a way that would harm the public interest, by requiring them to operate in accordance with the law so that the public’s safety is not endangered.
[12] In this case, there was an obvious concern because the LAT accepted that the Licensee had not conducted its business in accordance with the law or with honesty and integrity. Nevertheless, it found that the public interest could be satisfied with a penalty that fell short of revocation – namely a suspension and the imposition of terms. . Registrar, Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario v. Two-Four-Seven Lounge and Restaurant Inc.
In Registrar, Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario v. Two-Four-Seven Lounge and Restaurant Inc. (Ont Divisional Ct, 2025) the Divisional Court dismissed a JR, here where the "Registrar, Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario (the “Registrar” and “AGCO”) seeks judicial review of the decision and reconsideration decision of the Licence Appeal Tribunal (the “LAT” or the “Tribunal”)".
Here the court illustrates aspects of the role of the AGCO, and the LAT, regarding liquor-licensed premises:[2] On April 18, 2021, the Respondent, Two-Four-Seven Lounge and Restaurant Inc. (the “Licencee”) was approved for a liquor licence. Attached to that licence were three terms and conditions, all designed to ensure that Jimi Azeez Amidu, a previous owner, was not in the vicinity of the Licencee, and was not involved in its business operations or employed by the Licencee in any capacity. The Respondent, Adeniyi Balogun, is the principal of the Licencee.
[3] Licenced premises in Ontario are subject to compliance inspections by the AGCO. During the course of an inspection, the Liquor Licence and Control Act, 2019, S.O. 2019, c. 15, Sched. 22 (the “Act”) requires a licencee to comply with a request for documents made by an inspector designated by the AGCO. The AGCO conducted inspections of the Licencee’s premises and found that Mr. Amidu was present on the premises on two occasions. The inspector also asked an employee at the Licencee’s establishment to produce the liquor licence with the conditions attached and the employee could not do so. The standards enacted under the Act require a licencee to post its licence in a conspicuous place on its premises. Further, the inspector required the Licencee to produce certain documents, which were not produced.
[4] On April 15, 2024, the AGCO sent the Licencee a Notice of Proposal to Revoke its licence. The Licencee appealed the Notice to the LAT. The LAT convened a hearing. Pursuant to s. 26(5) of the Act, after a hearing, the Tribunal may impose any condition on a licence or permit that the Tribunal considers proper to give effect to the purposes of the Act.
[5] After a two-day hearing on June 17, 2024, the LAT issued a decision (the “Decision”) in which it found that:(a) The Licencee had breached the terms and conditions attached to its licence because Mr. Amidu was found on its premises on two occasions;
(b) The Licencee did not comply with its obligation to post its licence in a conspicuous place on its premises; and
(c) The Licencee breached s. 55(3) of the Act because it failed to facilitate the inspection by the AGCO’s inspector. [6] Given this, the LAT held that the Registrar had met its onus of proving that there were reasonable and probable ground for believing that the Licencee will not carry on business in accordance with the law and with integrity and honesty. However, rather than revoking the Licencee’s licence, the LAT found that the public interest could be satisfied by imposing a 30-day suspension of the Licencee’s licence with terms and conditions. . Toscani and Holland v. AGCO
In Toscani and Holland v. AGCO (Div Court, 2024) the Divisional Court dismissed a JR of "the decision of the Horse Racing Appeal Panel (“HRAP”) which dismissed their appeal from rulings by the Registrar, Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario (“Registrar”) that they had violated the Rules of Standardbred Racing (“RSR”) established under the Horse Racing Licence Act, 2015".
These quotes illustrate procedures in this little-litigated area of 'horse law':[3] In accordance with Rule 22.38 of the RSR, the Registrar required that blood samples be taken from GF and tested for total carbon dioxide, or “TCO2” to determine whether they were within the permissible thresholds set by the Registrar.
[4] The test results showed that GF’s blood levels of TCO2 were above the permitted threshold. This is generally a sign that the horse has been administered an alkalizing substance, which can enhance race day performance. There are other reasons why a horse may have high TCO2 levels. If an owner wants to claim that his or her horse has high TCO2 levels for reasons other than the administration of alkalizing substances, pursuant to Rule 22.38.07, the owner may have the horse quarantined and re-tested over a few days. If a quarantined horse’s TCO2 levels stay high after the effects of any alkalizing substances should have subsided, then the RSR precludes a finding that the owner and/or the trainer of the horse violated the rules.
[5] The Applicants did not request that GF be held in quarantine nor did they re-test GF following the TCO2 testing done at the time of the August 7, 2021 race.
[6] The Registrar imposed penalties for the violation of Rule 22.38 as follows:a. Mr. Toscani as Horse Owner – GF was ineligible from racing for 30 days;
b. Mr. Holland as Trainer – Suspension of Mr. Holland for 90 days, a monetary penalty of $5,000, designation of “unplaced” for GF in the race, redistribution of the purse money and two-year probationary terms on Mr. Holland’s license, until February 15, 2024. [7] The Applicants appealed to the HRAP and participated in a six-day hearing in October 2022.
|
