A 60-Day Pause on Profit: The Insufficiency of Regulatory Slaps in the Wake of Death
AI-generated image · Bay Street Wire
The AGCO is suspending the liquor licence of a St. Louis Bar & Grill location after a patron was served the equivalent of 21 drinks and died. Now, the question is why the state is treating a fatal failure of duty as a mere administrative error.
**OPINION**
As CBC Toronto first reported, the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario (AGCO) has moved to suspend the liquor licence of the St. Louis Bar & Grill at 11 St. Clair Avenue W. in Toronto. The move follows a harrowing April 11 incident where a customer was served 14 23-ounce beers—the equivalent of 21 standard drinks—over five and a half hours.
The AGCO's investigation found the bar continued to serve the customer after they became intoxicated and allowed them to remain on the premises. The result was a fatal fall in a stairwell leading to the washroom. Dr. Karin Schnarr, CEO of the AGCO, stated that licensees must monitor service and stop serving when necessary, asserting the AGCO takes "appropriate regulatory action" when patrons are put at risk.
But is a 60-day suspension "appropriate" when the result is death? By framing this under the Liquor Licence and Control Act as a licensing issue, the state treats a fatal catastrophe as a mere administrative error.
St. Louis Franchise Limited has the option to appeal this proposed suspension within 15 days. However, the focus should not be on whether the bar keeps its doors open, but on why the state relies on regulatory slaps for tragedies that demand criminal investigation. A two-month hiatus is a minor corporate inconvenience; for the victim, the loss is permanent.