Braemar Bakery Ltd. v. Liquor Control Commission (Man.), (1999) 137 Man.R.(2d) 257 (QB)

• Judge: Kennedy, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Manitoba (Canada)
• Case Date: May 14, 1999
• Jurisdiction: Manitoba
• Citations: (1999), 137 Man.R.(2d) 257 (QB)

Braemar Bakery v. Liq. Control (1999), 137 Man.R.(2d) 257 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [1999] Man.R.(2d) TBEd. JN.014

Braemar Bakery Ltd. (applicant) v. Manitoba Liquor Control Commission and The Licensing Board established under Section 19 of the Liquor Control Act (respondents)

(CI 98-01-10237)

Indexed As: Braemar Bakery Ltd. v. Liquor Control Commission (Man.)

Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench

Winnipeg Centre

Kennedy, J.

May 14, 1999.

Summary:

Braemar was charged with breaches of the Liquor Control Act. The charges were dis­missed as not giving rise to offences known at law. The Licensing Board of the Manitoba Liquor Control Commission held hearings into the charges. Braemar applied to quash the Board's decisions, alleging bias, undue reliance on hearsay evidence, breach of the duty of fairness and Charter breaches.

The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench dismissed Braemar's application.

Civil Rights - Topic 3830

Cruel and unusual treatment or punishment - What constitutes cruel and unusual punishment - Circumstances not constitut­ing - Braemar operated a dining room and cocktail bar - The Licensing Board of the Manitoba Liquor Control Commission held hearings into allegations that Braemar breached its licence by serving liquor after hours and exceeding the capacity of the establishment - The Board found Braemar in breach and suspended its licence for one day - Braemar applied for judicial review, alleging, inter alia, breach of s. 12 of the Charter (cruel and unusual punishment) - The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench rejected the claim - See paragraphs 40 to 41.

Civil Rights - Topic 8404

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Criminal proceedings - Double jeopardy -Braemar operated a dining room and cock­tail bar - Braemar was charged with breaches of the Liquor Control Act - The charges were dismissed as not giving rise to offences known at law - The Licensing Board of the Manitoba Liquor Control Commission held hearings into the breaches - Braemar alleged that the Board hearings constituted double jeopardy in breach of the Charter - The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench dismissed Brae­mar's allegations - See paragraphs 36 to 39.

Liquor Control - Topic 4281

Licensing - Denial, suspension or termi­nation of licence - General - Braemar operated a dining room and cocktail bar - The Licensing Board of the Manitoba Liquor Control Commission held a hearing into allegations that Braemar breached its licence by selling liquor after hours and exceeding the capacity of the establishment - The Board found Braemar in breach and suspended its licence for one day - Brae­mar applied for judicial review, alleging bias, undue reliance on hearsay evidence, breach of the duty of fairness and Charter breaches - The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench dismissed Braemar's application.

Liquor Control - Topic 4286

Licensing - Denial, suspension or termi­nation of licence - Hearsay - Braemar operated a dining room and cocktail bar - The Licensing Board of the Manitoba Liquor Control Commission held a hearing into allegations that Braemar breached its licence - The Board found Braemar in breach and suspended its licence for one day - Braemar applied for judicial review, submitting, inter alia, that the Board unduly relied on hearsay evidence and should not have admitted hearsay evidence by the inspectors who reported the breaches - The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench declined to quash the decision on this ground - The decision was not based exclusively on hearsay evidence and Brae­mar was not precluded from cross-exam­ining available witnesses - The inspectors themselves observed the breaches and the hearsay evidence they gave from speaking to patrons merely confirmed what the inspectors themselves had already observed - See paragraphs 17 to 21.

Liquor Control - Topic 4287

Licensing - Denial, suspension or termi­nation of licence - Application for review -Braemar operated a dining room and cock­tail bar - The Licensing Board of the Manitoba Liquor Control Commission held a hearing into allegations that Braemar breached its licence - Inspectors testified respecting the breaches that they observed at Braemar's premises - Following the hearing, the Board invited the inspectors to remain behind for some discussion - The discussion concerned unrelated matters - The Board found Braemar in breach and suspended its licence for one day - Brae­mar applied for judicial review, alleging, inter alia, an apprehension of bias - The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench declined to quash the decision on this ground - There was an appearance of bias, but the apprehension of bias was not substantial and the decision made by the Board was eminently reasonable - See paragraphs 22 to 31.

Liquor Control - Topic 4288

Licensing - Denial, suspension or termi­nation of licence - Evidence and proof - [See Liquor Control - Topic 4286 ].

Cases Noticed:

Martineau v. Matsqui Institution Disciplin­ary Board, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 602; 30 N.R. 119; 106 D.L.R.(3d) 385; 13 C.R.(3d) 1 (Eng.); 15 C.R.(3d) 315 (Fr.); 50 C.C.C.(2d) 353, refd to. [para. 16].

Girvin et al. v. Consumers' Gas Co. (1973), 1 O.R.(2d) 421 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 19].

J.B. v. Catholic Children's Aid Society of Metropolitan Toronto (1987), 27 Admin. L.R. 295, refd to. [para. 19].

Moharib v. Misericordia General Hospital (1996), 107 Man.R.(2d) 283; 109 W.A.C. 283 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 26].

Committee for Justice and Liberty Foun­dation et al. v. National Energy Board et al., [1978] 1 S.C.R. 369; 9 N.R. 115; 68 D.L.R.(3d) 716, refd to. [para. 28].

A and L Investments Ltd. v. Ontario (Minister of Housing) (1997), 104 O.A.C. 92; 152 D.L.R.(4th) 692 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 35].

Home Orderly Services Ltd. and Watson v. Manitoba (1987), 49 Man.R.(2d) 246; 43 D.L.R.(4th) 300 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 35].

Gershman Produce Co. v. Motor Transport Board (1985), 36 Man.R.(2d) 81; 22 D.L.R.(4th) 520 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 35].

Anthony v. Misericordia General Hospital (Executive Director) et al. (1988), 55 Man.R.(2d) 49 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 35].

R. v. Wigglesworth, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 541; 81 N.R. 161; 61 Sask.R. 105; 24 O.A.C. 321; 45 D.L.R.(4th) 235; [1988] 1 W.W.R. 193; 60 C.R.(3d) 193; 28 Admin. L.R. 294; 32 C.R.R. 219; 37 C.C.C.(3d) 385, refd to. [para. 38].

R. v. Mingo (1982), 2 C.C.C.(3d) 23 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 38].

R. v. Shubley, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 3; 104 N.R. 81; 37 O.A.C. 63; 52 C.C.C.(3d) 481, refd to. [para. 38 ].

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 11(h) [para. 36].

Liquor Control Act, R.S.M. 1988, c. L-160; C.C.S.M., c. L-160, sect. 8(1), sect. 25(6) [para. 13]; sect. 35 [para. 12].

Counsel:

M. Skremetka, for the applicant;

J.L. Kapac, for the Minister of Justice;

D.L. Carlson, for the Department of Jus­tice, Constitutional Branch.

This application was heard before Kennedy, J., of the Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench, Winnipeg Centre, who delivered the following judgment on May 14, 1999.