REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE
TORONTO LICENSING TRIBUNAL
Date of
Hearing:
September 6, 2012
Panel:
David Peacock, Chair; Sandeep Agrawal, Ted Yao, Members
Re:
Bloor Street Coffee Company Inc., operating as Second Cup
Applicant for renewal of Eating Establishment Licence B71-4068788
Counsel for Municipal Licensing and Standards:
Counsel for Applicant:
David Gourlay
Mr. B. Arvanitis is a Director of Bloor Street Coffee. Mr.
Arvanitis indicated that he wished to proceed without the
benefit of legal counsel.
INTRODUCTION:
Bloor Street Coffee (BSC) had been issued an Eating Establishment licence in October
1999. The licence was cancelled and renewed on two subsequent occasions. The City
refused to renew in November 2011 due to concerns about convictions for operating
without a licence in 2009 and 2010.
CITY'S EVIDENCE
The City entered report No. 5801 dated August 24, 2012 from Municipal Licensing and
Standards (MLS) as Exhibit 1. Ms Alice Xu testified on behalf of the City. Ms Xu is an
Acting Supervisor for MLS and supervised the creation of report 5801.
Mr. Arvanitis testified on behalf of BSC.
ISSUES
Operating without a Licence
Ms Xu testified that BSC had been issued a licence in October 1999 that was cancelled
in January 2007 due to non-payment of renewal fees. A second licence was issued in
April 2006 and cancelled in July 2007 due to non-payment of renewal fees. A third
licence was issued in November 2010 and due for renewal in November 2011. The City
explained the overlap of the second and third licences by suggesting that confusion can
arise when ownership changes occur. In any event, BSC had no licence between July
2007 and November 2010.
BSC was convicted four times for operating without a licence between March 2009 and
May 2010. They paid fines totalling $400.
Decision of the Tribunal: Re: Bloor Street Coffee Company Inc.
September 6, 2012
Mr. Arvanitis explained that Second Cup had been operating in the current location for a
number of years before BSC took over the franchise. He said that there had been a
lapse in leadership of the company that had resulted in non-payment of business licence
fees among other things.
Mr Arvanitis got involved in trying to correct the problems in 2007. He said that there
was “a comedy of errors” in trying to resolve them.
There were issues with incorporation documentation that needed to be corrected and
updated. All new owners had to have a police check and all documentation had to be
complete and accurate before the City would accept the new incorporation
documentation. He said that the ownership issues were settled some time in 2008. He
said that he could not pay the renewal fees in 2007 because the City did not recognize
him as a legal representative of BSC at that time.
Mr. Arvanitis stated that there were issues with the Franchise agreement with Second
Cup because of incorporation issues and loss of licence. These Franchise issues were
resolved around November 2008. The City requires a valid Franchise agreement to
qualify for a licence.
He also stated that he could not apply for a new licence because there were unpaid
fines. The City stated that an application could be made with unpaid fines but no licence
would be issued until they were paid.
Mr. Arvanitis stated that he had made a total of 9 trips to MLS to try to resolve the
licensing issue.
On cross-examination by the City, Mr. Arvanitis agreed that BSC had continued to
operate without a licence between July 2007 and November 2010.
He also said that there had not been any complaints or other by-law offense convictions.
Boulevard Café Permit
BSC was issued a Boulevard Café Permit in July 1999. The permit was cancelled in
August 2008. The Boulevard Café permit could not be renewed because of the loss of
the Eating Establishment licence. BSC made application for a new permit in January
2011. The application was denied due to negative polling results.
Mr. Arvanitis stated that the patio had been operating for 20 years in that location. He
also stated that it continues to operate at this time without a permit.
This Tribunal has no authority to deal with a Boulevard Permit. The point of this
evidence, according to BSC, is that its failure to obtain an Eating Establishment license
has caused it additional headaches and expense beyond the by-law prosecutions and
possible suspension or revocation of the Eating Establishment license under the
Municipal Code.
CITY'S SUBMISSION
2
Decision of the Tribunal: Re: Bloor Street Coffee Company Inc.
September 6, 2012
The City stated that a Corporation is before the Tribunal and not individuals. Internal
organizational issues arising from disputes between individuals in a corporation are not a
concern for the Tribunal.
It said that all of the organizational issues were resolved by early 2009 and no new
licence was issued until November 2010. The Company continued to operate during this
period knowing that it did not have a licence. It said that this demonstrated a disregard
for the law.
Furthermore the City was concerned that there was no assurance that this disregard
would not continue in the future.
In addition, BSC continues to operate a Boulevard Cafe without a permit. This also
demonstrated a disregard for the law.
BSC had been fined $400 for by-law violations, but this was much less than the cost of
the annual licence fees.
The City asked that the licence be granted with a two year probationary period. In
addition it asked for 3 day suspension.
APPLICANT'S SUBMISSION
Mr. Arvanitis stated that he is a medical professional, not a business person, and was
only a passive investor in the café. He has worked very hard to resolve all of the
organizational issues and that he was sorry that it had not been resolved sooner. He felt
that his efforts had been frustrated by the exacting requirements of MLS. He felt that he
had already been punished by the threat of loss of the licence. He asked for
understanding and forgiveness. He said that a 3 day suspension would punish staff and
they should not be responsible for corporate problems. He asked that any renewal not
include a suspension as a condition.
The City responded that BSC could opt to pay staff for suspension days.
DECISION
According to City of Toronto Municipal Code Chapter 545-4 C (1)
An applicant … for the renewal of a licence, is, … entitled to be issued the licence or
renewal, except where:… The applicant is a corporation and its conduct or the conduct
of its officers, directors, employees or agents affords reasonable grounds for belief that
its trade, business or occupation has not been, or will not be, carried on in accordance
with law and with integrity and honesty
The applicant appears to have been working hard to resolve its organizational issues
and it still took longer than it should have. The applicant knowingly operated without a
licence for over three years. It still operates a Boulevard Cafe without a permit.
3
Decision of the Tribunal: Re: Bloor Street Coffee Company Inc.
September 6, 2012
Although the corporation operated in the past without regard for the law, it was the
Tribunal’s opinion that the efforts and attitude displayed by Mr. Arvanitis do not afford
reasonable grounds to believe that they will act with disregard for the law in the future.
We consider Mr. Arvanitis’s acknowledgement of wrongdoing a significant mitigating
factor.
The Tribunal decided not to impose a probationary period as a condition. The only bylaw offenses committed were for operating without a licence. This kind of activity had led
to this hearing and could be expected to do so again at any time in the future and
therefore the condition would be redundant.
In order to reinforce the importance of regard for the law the Tribunal decided to impose
a condition of a one day suspension.
Accordingly, the Tribunal orders that the Applicant for renewal of Eating
Establishment Licence B71-4068788 be granted, with a condition of a one day
suspension of business on Monday September 23, 2012. . If the condition is not
met, Report 5801 may come before us again, together with any other matters of
concern to MLS that have arisen prior to the new hearing date.
Originally Signed
___________________________
David Peacock, Chair
Panel Members Sandeep Agrawal and Ted Yao concurring
[Reference: Minute No. 188/12]
Date Signed: October 4, 2012
4