Alcohol and Gaming Commission Appeal by SW Legal Services
FILE: 9120/AGRPPA
CASE NAME: 9120 v. Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming
Canlii: 2015canlii9420
Peter Swales is one of the only paralegals in Ontario published in multiple levels of court and various tribunals. Here is an analysis of one of his cited cases – an appeal from a decion of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario;
A big win for a small business! This case highlights the critical role that skilled legal representation can play in defending against regulatory charges. The Turntable Restaurant & Lounge, facing a significant fine, found a strong advocate in paralegal Peter Swales.
The Allegation: A Crowded House
On the night of April 14, 2013, Peel Regional Police officers entered the Turntable Restaurant & Lounge. Based on the number of cars in the parking lot, they suspected the venue might be over its licensed capacity of 90 people. After conducting a manual headcount, two officers came up with numbers well over the limit – 112 and 114 respectively.
As a result, the Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming issued an Order of Monetary Penalty against the lounge for $2,500. For a small establishment, this is no small sum. The owners, Carl Alexander Rose-Green and Patrick Dolly, decided to fight the penalty and appealed the decision, with Peter Swales representing them before the Licence Appeal Tribunal.
The Defense: Uncovering Inconsistencies Through Sharp Advocacy
This is where Peter Swales’ advocacy skills shone. His strategy focused on meticulously dissecting the evidence presented by the Registrar’s witnesses, two police officers, and highlighting significant inconsistencies and credibility issues in their testimony.
Key points from Mr. Swales’ successful defense include:
- Conflicting Police Testimony: Swales skillfully drew out contradictions in the officers’ accounts. One officer, Sgt. Van Allen, testified that he didn’t recall seeing the security guard’s mechanical counter or speaking with him about the patron count. However, the other officer, Const. Pedano, testified that he did see the security guard show the sergeant his counter, which read exactly 90. This contradiction cast serious doubt on the reliability of the officers’ observations.
- Questioning the “Manual Headcount”: Swales challenged the accuracy of the officers’ manual count. The officers admitted they didn’t instruct patrons to stand still while they conducted their counts in a busy nightclub environment. The Tribunal later noted that the officers’ testimony that patrons were “mainly stationary” lacked credibility for what was described as a crowded and busy club.
- Presenting a Coherent Counter-Narrative: Swales presented his own witnesses who offered a more consistent version of events. The security guard, Rodney Gill, testified that he showed the police his counter which read 90. The owner, Mr. Rose-Green, testified that he had offered to turn on the lights and stop the music to allow for a precise exit count of patrons, an offer the police declined. This demonstrated his client’s willingness to cooperate and confidence in their adherence to the law.
- Highlighting Flawed Justification: The entire inspection was initiated because an officer thought the parking lot looked too full. Swales exposed this as weak reasoning, with one officer admitting a neighboring restaurant was open , while the other claimed it would have been closed, further muddying the waters of their testimony.
The Outcome: Justice Served
Ultimately, the Tribunal was not convinced by the Registrar’s case. Adjudicator Jacqueline Castel noted the “significant inconsistencies in the evidence of the two police officers” and the lack of detail in their notes and recollection. The Tribunal found that given the circumstances, particularly the discrepancy between the officers’ manual counts and the security guard’s mechanical counter, a more precise exit count could and should have been performed.
The Tribunal sided with the arguments presented by Mr. Swales, concluding that the Registrar had not proven the contravention on a balance of probabilities. The $2,500 penalty was set aside.
This case is a testament to the power of diligent and effective legal advocacy. Peter Swales’ ability to challenge evidence, expose inconsistencies, and present a clear, credible defense secured a just outcome for his client. It underscores the importance for any business facing regulatory action to seek out capable representation. 🏛️
