The evidence established that the petitioner had standards above most operators for the prevention of the sale of liquor to minors and that it was not standard in the industry for a manager to always work nights. The General Manager directed his inquiry to whether the employee was the directing mind of the licensee and found that, notwithstanding the reasonable efforts of the licensee to attain compliance through policies and procedures, it was not entitled to the defence of due diligence. The finding of reasonable care by establishing proper systems to prevent the sale of liquor to minors, left whether the supervisor was a directing mind of the petitioner as the only issue. The General Manager made the necessary findings of fact relative to this issue. Because the General Manager applied the wrong test but found facts that support an apparent decision when the correct test is applied, reasonableness requires deference to the reasons that were expressed (Sivia v. British Columbia (Superintendent of Motor Vehicles), 2012 BCSC 515 at para. 11). But for the error in law, the contravention would not have been found.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexsei.com.