Open Alcohol (Public Place)
Liquor Licence Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. L.19
31 (1) In this section,
“residence” means a place that is actually occupied and used as a dwelling, whether or not in common with other persons, including all premises used in conjunction with the place to which the general public is not invited or permitted access, and, if the place occupied and used as a dwelling is a tent, includes the land immediately adjacent to and used in conjunction with the tent. R.S.O. 1990, c. L.19, s. 31 (1).
- (2) No person shall have or consume liquor in any place other than,
- (a) a residence;
- (b) premises in respect of which a licence or permit is issued;
- (c) a private place as defined in the regulations; or
- (d) despite any designation of a place made under section 35 and subject to the regulations, a public place designated by a by-law made by the council of a municipality. R.S.O. 1990, c. L.19, s. 31 (2); 2019, c. 7, Sched. 38, s. 2.
- (3) Subsection (2) does not apply to the possession of liquor that is in a closed container. R.S.O. 1990, c. L.19, s. 31 (3).
- (3.1) Despite clause (2) (b), no person shall consume beer or wine in a licensed ferment on premise facility except as permitted by the regulations. 1998, c. 24, s. 13; 2006, c. 34, s. 16 (45).
R. v. Trela, 2009 ONCJ 167 (CanLII)
[47] The offences before the Court are created by subsection 32(1) of the Liquor Licence Act. In order to sustain a conviction against the defendant on both charges, the prosecution must establish, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant committed all of the essential elements of the actus reus of each of the offences, as those elements are defined by subsection 32(1) of the said Act.
[48] In this regard, the prosecution must prove the identification of the defendant as the individual who committed the prohibited acts in each offence. In addition, the prosecution must prove that on the date in question and at the place described in the certificates of offence, the defendant was driving a motor vehicle, whether or not it was in motion, while there was liquor contained in the vehicle. The only evidence received by the Court during this trial was the testimony of Police Constable Paul Fretz and the two bottles, purportedly containing liquor, entered as exhibit nos. one and two. (a) Identification of the Defendant
[49] In my view, the element of identification has been established through the evidence of the prosecution witness.
R. v. M.B., 2007 CanLII 8004 (ON SC)
[286] The Crown further relies upon the plain view doctrine. P.C. McCue was lawfully positioned when he observed the items which he did not expect to see in the backpack. Nevertheless, he was lawfully authorized to conduct the search within the Liquor Licence Act and common law. R. v. Buhay (2003), 2003 SCC 30 (CanLII), 174 C.C.C. (3d) 97 (S.C.C.) at paragraph 37; R. v. Law (2002), 2002 SCC 10 (CanLII), 160 C.C.C. (3d) 449 (S.C.C.) at paragraph 27.
