Sentinel Park Holdings Ltd. v. Liquor Control and Licensing Branch (B.C.), 2004 BCSC 885

JudgeMorrison, J.
CourtSupreme Court of British Columbia (Canada)
Case DateMay 10, 2004
JurisdictionBritish Columbia
Citations2004 BCSC 885;[2004] B.C.T.C. 885 (SC)

Sentinel Park Holdings v. Liquor Control, [2004] B.C.T.C. 885 (SC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2004] B.C.T.C. TBEd. JL.062

In The Matter Of the Judicial Review Procedure Act, R.S.B.C. 1996 Chapter 241

Sentinel Park Holdings Ltd. dba No. 5 Orange Street Hotel (petitioner) v. The General Manager, Liquor Control and Licensing Branch (respondent)

(L031999; 2004 BCSC 885)

Indexed As: Sentinel Park Holdings Ltd. v. Liquor Control and Licensing Branch (B.C.)

British Columbia Supreme Court

Vancouver

Morrison, J.

June 30, 2004.

Summary:

This headnote contains no summary.

Liquor Control - Topic 4287

Licensing - Denial, suspension, transfer or termination of licence - Application for review - See paragraphs 39 to 43.

Liquor Control - Topic 5124

Practice - Evidence and proof - Onus or standard of proof - See paragraphs 39 to 43.

Cases Noticed:

Plaza Cabaret Ltd. v. Liquor Control and Licensing Branch (B.C.), [2004] B.C.T.C. 248; 2004 BCSC 248, consd. [para. 20].

532871 B.C. Ltd. v. Liquor Control and Licensing Branch (B.C.), [2004] B.C.T.C. 127; 2004 BCSC 127, consd. [para. 20].

Urban Well v. Liquor Control and Licensing Branch (B.C.) - see 532871 B.C. Ltd. v. Liquor Control and Licensing Branch (B.C.).

Zodiac Pub Ltd. v. Liquor Control and Licensing Branch (B.C.), [2004] B.C.T.C. 96; 2004 BCSC 96, consd. [para. 32].

New World Entertainment Investments Ltd. v. Liquor Control and Licensing Branch (B.C.), [2004] B.C.T.C. 616 (S.C.), consd. [para. 32].

Mohammed et al. v. Liquor Control and Licensing Branch (B.C.) et al. (1994), 51 B.C.A.C. 62; 84 W.A.C. 62 (C.A.), consd. [para. 40].

Counsel:

J. David Houston, for the petitioner;

Heidi Hughes, for the respondent.

This petition was heard on May 10, 2004, at Vancouver, British Columbia, by Morrison, J., of the British Columbia Supreme Court, who delivered the following reasons for judgment on June 30, 2004.

Please note: The following judgment has not been edited.

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 practice notes
  • Aztec Prop. v. Liquor Control, 2005 BCSC 1465
    • Canada
    • British Columbia Supreme Court of British Columbia (Canada)
    • September 12, 2005
    ...; 2004 BCSC 616 , refd to. [para. 10]. Sentinel Park Holdings Ltd. v. Liquor Control and Licensing Branch (B.C.), [2004] B.C.T.C. 885 ; 2004 BCSC 885, refd to. [para. Roxy Cabaret Ltd. v. Liquor Control and Licensing Branch (B.C.), [2005] B.C.T.C. 459 ; 2005 BCSC 459 , refd to. [para. 1......
  • Jacobsen Enterprises Ltd. v. Liquor Control and Licensing Branch (B.C.), [2008] B.C.T.C. Uned. 770 (SC)
    • Canada
    • Supreme Court of British Columbia (Canada)
    • August 1, 2008
    ...(c.o.b. No. 5 Orange Street Hotel) v. British Columbia (Liquor Control and Licensing Branch, General Manager) [2004] B.C.J. No. 1352, 2004 BCSC 885 at ¶ 39-43; Aztec Properties Co. (c.o.b. Bimini Neighbourhood Pub) v. B.C. (Liquor Control and Licensing Branch, General Manager) [2005] B.C.J.......
  • Publik Restaurant PG Ltd. v. General Manager Liquor Control and Licensing Branch (B.C.), 2009 BCSC 249
    • Canada
    • British Columbia Supreme Court of British Columbia (Canada)
    • February 27, 2009
    ...with unless it is clearly wrong, citing Sentinel Peak Holdings Ltd. v. The General Manager, Liquor Control and Licensing Branch , 2004 BCSC 885 and Aztec Properties Company Ltd. v. General Manager of the Liquor Control and Licensing Branch , 2005 BCSC 1465. [27] With respect to the adjudica......
  • Butterworth Holdings Ltd. et al. v. Liquor Control and Licensing Branch (B.C.), [2007] B.C.T.C. Uned. B02
    • Canada
    • British Columbia Supreme Court of British Columbia (Canada)
    • January 3, 2007
    ...Sandman Hotel Langley Inc. ; Sentinel Peak Holdings Ltd. v. British Columbia (Liquor Control and Licensing Branch, General Manager) , 2004 BCSC 885, at ¶39-43. [32] The test is factual and depends on the circumstances of each case: Sault Ste. Marie at ¶70. [33] The licensee is required to e......
4 cases
  • Aztec Prop. v. Liquor Control, 2005 BCSC 1465
    • Canada
    • British Columbia Supreme Court of British Columbia (Canada)
    • September 12, 2005
    ...; 2004 BCSC 616 , refd to. [para. 10]. Sentinel Park Holdings Ltd. v. Liquor Control and Licensing Branch (B.C.), [2004] B.C.T.C. 885 ; 2004 BCSC 885, refd to. [para. Roxy Cabaret Ltd. v. Liquor Control and Licensing Branch (B.C.), [2005] B.C.T.C. 459 ; 2005 BCSC 459 , refd to. [para. 1......
  • Jacobsen Enterprises Ltd. v. Liquor Control and Licensing Branch (B.C.), [2008] B.C.T.C. Uned. 770 (SC)
    • Canada
    • Supreme Court of British Columbia (Canada)
    • August 1, 2008
    ...(c.o.b. No. 5 Orange Street Hotel) v. British Columbia (Liquor Control and Licensing Branch, General Manager) [2004] B.C.J. No. 1352, 2004 BCSC 885 at ¶ 39-43; Aztec Properties Co. (c.o.b. Bimini Neighbourhood Pub) v. B.C. (Liquor Control and Licensing Branch, General Manager) [2005] B.C.J.......
  • Publik Restaurant PG Ltd. v. General Manager Liquor Control and Licensing Branch (B.C.), 2009 BCSC 249
    • Canada
    • British Columbia Supreme Court of British Columbia (Canada)
    • February 27, 2009
    ...with unless it is clearly wrong, citing Sentinel Peak Holdings Ltd. v. The General Manager, Liquor Control and Licensing Branch , 2004 BCSC 885 and Aztec Properties Company Ltd. v. General Manager of the Liquor Control and Licensing Branch , 2005 BCSC 1465. [27] With respect to the adjudica......
  • Butterworth Holdings Ltd. et al. v. Liquor Control and Licensing Branch (B.C.), [2007] B.C.T.C. Uned. B02
    • Canada
    • British Columbia Supreme Court of British Columbia (Canada)
    • January 3, 2007
    ...Sandman Hotel Langley Inc. ; Sentinel Peak Holdings Ltd. v. British Columbia (Liquor Control and Licensing Branch, General Manager) , 2004 BCSC 885, at ¶39-43. [32] The test is factual and depends on the circumstances of each case: Sault Ste. Marie at ¶70. [33] The licensee is required to e......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT