Ontario liquor laws concerning liability

[Topaz]

I wondering if anyone from Ont. knows what the new laws are as far as drinking at one own property. Is there any responsibility for the homeowner if someone leaves your property and gets in an accident? At a group debate, someone said since they changed the laws for hotels that sell liquor to individual drinking , it was the same. True or False?

[M.Dancer]

I wondering if anyone from Ont. knows what the new laws are as far as drinking at one own property. Is there any responsibility for the homeowner if someone leaves your property and gets in an accident? At a group debate, someone said since they changed the laws for hotels that sell liquor to individual drinking , it was the same. True or False?

I haven't a clue what your question is. Are you asking if a hotel can sell off license?

There are no new laws that I am aware of, and I just helped someone get their smart serve last month and didn't notice anything new.

If you give or sell alcohol, you bear some responsibility for the actions of that person, whether it is you home, backyard or at a bar.

[Michael Hardner]

to add - that isn't a criminal issue but an issue of personal liability.

There are no laws that say that people can't leave your home drunk, but if they do there is some concern that you may be liable for their behavior.

[M.Dancer]

Last Feb they chnaged the law to allow patrons to bring their drinks to the toilet. This was done to allow women to keep their eye on their cocktail.

In seedier places the drunks bring their cola to top it up with their own rum...

[M.Dancer]

There are no laws that say that people can't leave your home drunk, but if they do there is some concern that you may be liable for their behavior.

There may be no law that you can't leave drunk but there is a law about serving people who are; whether in your living room or in a bar, drunk.

[guyser]

I wondering if anyone from Ont. knows what the new laws are as far as drinking at one own property. Is there any responsibility for the homeowner if someone leaves your property and gets in an accident? At a group debate, someone said since they changed the laws for hotels that sell liquor to individual drinking , it was the same. True or False?

The issue is liability not criminal.

The courts have issued a couple of verdicts and it seems that the burden of proof has increased on the plaintiff , and that is good news.

As I understand , the old standard was becoming ..."you served him, you are responsible"

But now some courts and juries are saying could the owners (home or bar) or their employees reasonably know if the defendant was impaired ? In many cases no they could not. In one case the bar being sued found out that the person actually stopped somewhere else for a drink and that brought into question just who had any responsibility.

Beware the next phase though.

MADD ( and they are) either have lobied or are doing so , and may have been successful, in amending the blood alcohol limit with respects to automatic suspensions.

It used to be if you blew over .04 but under.10 (technically .08 but rarely is one charged) you were given a 12 hour suspension. You handed over your drivers licence and caught a ride home. No harm , no foul , not registered anywhere.

Thanks to MADD, 12 hours now becomes 3 days , entered as an ADLS suspension, which goes on your abstract , whcih means insurnace companies know you were caught and will likely charge you on it.

The problem? No roadside record is kept , thus nothing can be produced in court. The old way worked, but the idiots at MADD cant leave well enough alone. What they have essentially done is made it so many moms and dads, out for dinner and a glass of wine, can now be charged.

Yes I expect court challenges. MADD needs to make up their mind. Either 0% BAC or .08%

Edited January 14, 2008 by guyser

[Topaz]

Sorry if I wasn`t clear. My question is for ie. a homeowner has a bunch of guys over and they get drinking. Later after leaving the drinking party one gets into an accident. Can the law come back on the homeowner for supplying and not stopping the person from driving? Would there further problems to the homeowner if someone was killed? I know the laws about the bars but I wonder if it was the same law for non-license property?

[Michael Hardner]

Topaz - you need to read up on the difference between breaking the law, and being liable first.

It's not illegal to leave you sidewalk unshovelled, but you may be liable if somebody falls on the ice.

[guyser]

Sorry if I wasn`t clear. My question is for ie. a homeowner has a bunch of guys over and they get drinking. Later after leaving the drinking party one gets into an accident. Can the law come back on the homeowner for supplying and not stopping the person from driving? Would there further problems to the homeowner if someone was killed? I know the laws about the bars but I wonder if it was the same law for non-license property?

Yes and no.

If it could be shown in court that the homeowner knew the person was drunk and did nothing to stop him then there "could" be liability imposed by a court.

The problem is that virtually no one is an expert and cannot know of impairment for their guest. Its my feeling that the guest would have to be falling down drunk, slurring words and out of control for the homeowner or party thrower to be liable.

One has to factor so many variables to determine the ability of a person to drive. Size weight height metabolism or that she or he is a cop.

[guyser]

It's not illegal to leave you sidewalk unshovelled,

Yes it is . By Laws....you have 12 hours to remove snow from your sidewalk out front.

[M.Dancer]

Yes it is . By Laws....you have 12 hours to remove snow from your sidewalk out front.

Yes. The fine though is far too low, under $500.

[M.Dancer]

Yes and no.

If it could be shown in court that the homeowner knew the person was drunk and did nothing to stop him then there "could" be liability imposed by a court.

The problem is that virtually no one is an expert and cannot know of impairment for their guest. Its my feeling that the guest would have to be falling down drunk, slurring words and out of control for the homeowner or party thrower to be liable.

One has to factor so many variables to determine the ability of a person to drive. Size weight height metabolism or that she or he is a cop.

Although it has never happened to my knowledge, they could also fine you in excess of $20,000 for over serving.

[guyser]

Although it has never happened to my knowledge, they could also fine you in excess of $20,000 for over serving.

20G is that for an establishment or the homeowner?

As for smart serve, cant get insurance without it! How does one "help" get a SS cert?

[M.Dancer]

20G is that for an establishment or the homeowner?

As for smart serve, cant get insurance without it! How does one "help" get a SS cert?

Like this: Okay, this is the interweb, clicking 5 times on the submit button will not make it faster....

and....

The reason you can't submit the completed form is you haven't answered all the questions...you just can't answer the question and hit the back button.

I was helping someone do it online who had never filled out an online form before.

[guyser]

I was helping someone do it online who had never filled out an online form before.

...oh.....

[Community Advocate]

Sorry if I wasn`t clear. My question is for ie. a homeowner has a bunch of guys over and they get drinking. Later after leaving the drinking party one gets into an accident. Can the law come back on the homeowner for supplying and not stopping the person from driving? Would there further problems to the homeowner if someone was killed? I know the laws about the bars but I wonder if it was the same law for non-license property?

Short answer is YES. But it isn't the law that comes after you, it's your guest. You can pretty much sue anybody for anything if you can afford the lawyer.

There have been precedents where people were drinking at a home, got into accidents, were injured in those accidents, and the homeowners were held liable. In one case I recall, the homeowner was liable for 70%. In another, where a youth was seriously injured, the homeowner was held 100% liable, even though she said she was unaware that the youth were drinking in her home.

It is not under the criminal code, it is under civil liability. Therefore, the police can not lay the charges, the victim has to sue.

[Community Advocate]

Yes and no.

If it could be shown in court that the homeowner knew the person was drunk and did nothing to stop him then there "could" be liability imposed by a court.

The problem is that virtually no one is an expert and cannot know of impairment for their guest. Its my feeling that the guest would have to be falling down drunk, slurring words and out of control for the homeowner or party thrower to be liable.

One has to factor so many variables to determine the ability of a person to drive. Size weight height metabolism or that she or he is a cop.

The only 'experts' in this case would be the lawyers and the judge. If there are credible witnesses that observed the person who had been drinking leave the host's home, and they were not fit to drive (being 'fallling-down drunk' is not necessary to be unfit to drive) and they were in an accident that was caused due to their impairment, then yes, there is a good chance that the host would be held liable.

The last line in this quote explains why MADD is going for zero tolerance. For some, one drink is too much in order to drive a deadly weapon.

What I find odd is that when people are drinking and they 'feel fine' to drive, their only concern is getting stopped by police and fined and losing their vehicle for 24 hours. People often fail to think about all the other things that can happen that would be much much worse than that.

[guyser]

The only 'experts' in this case would be the lawyers and the judge. If there are credible witnesses that observed the person who had been drinking leave the host's home, and they were not fit to drive (being 'fallling-down drunk' is not necessary to be unfit to drive) and they were in an accident that was caused due to their impairment, then yes, there is a good chance that the host would be held liable.

The pendulum has swung back in favour of the homeowner now.Credible or not, they would have virtually no idea how many drinks the person consumed. Nor would they be able to know with any certainty whether they are under the legal limit.

The courts have realized that people have personal responsibility and if they are walking talking and seem to be in control then they are not usually held liable. That is why I put in the falling down drunk part.

Lawyers are able to shred the credible witness, ie, how many people had a drink? Including yourself? How then are you able to judge? How many drinks did so and so consume and what was in them. Are you sure that was vodka and not water?

Holding a homeowner liable is pretty hard. Too many variables.

The last line in this quote explains why MADD is going for zero tolerance. For some, one drink is too much in order to drive a deadly weapon.

What I find odd is that when people are drinking and they 'feel fine' to drive, their only concern is getting stopped by police and fined and losing their vehicle for 24 hours. People often fail to think about all the other things that can happen that would be much much worse than that.

Then MADD should come right out and say that. The problem is MADD in their attempts to curb D&D alienate a lot of people and these new measures will that known.

[Community Advocate]

The pendulum has swung back in favour of the homeowner now.Credible or not, they would have virtually no idea how many drinks the person consumed. Nor would they be able to know with any certainty whether they are under the legal limit.

The courts have realized that people have personal responsibility and if they are walking talking and seem to be in control then they are not usually held liable. That is why I put in the falling down drunk part.

Lawyers are able to shred the credible witness, ie, how many people had a drink? Including yourself? How then are you able to judge? How many drinks did so and so consume and what was in them. Are you sure that was vodka and not water?

Holding a homeowner liable is pretty hard. Too many variables.

Then MADD should come right out and say that. The problem is MADD in their attempts to curb D&D alienate a lot of people and these new measures will that known.

While a good lawyer may get you off (and cost a pile of dough), you are more likely to be held liable in the case of an accident. There are many precedents on the books. So, in our house, the legal limit to drink and then drive is none. Don't care if you've been drinking before you got here, you brought your own booze, whatever. If you try to leave my house after drinking, you will be shortly stopped by the police, after I call them. Now, knowing this, you may choose to have me drive you home, or send you in a taxi, and deliver your vehicle to you the next day if i have been drinking with you.

Don't care if you think you're fit to drive - as a responsible home owner, I can't take that chance. And it's not about being sued, it's about what might happen that I could never forgive myself for. But that's just me.

[guyser]

While a good lawyer may get you off (and cost a pile of dough),

It will not cost you a penny more. You have already paid for the lawyers in your homeowners fees.

you are more likely to be held liable in the case of an accident. There are many precedents on the books.

There are very few precedents on the books with respect to homeowners, and the recent cases exhonerated the homeowner. Thus the pendulum has swung to the homeowners side.

So, in our house, the legal limit to drink and then drive is none. Don't care if you've been drinking before you got here, you brought your own booze, whatever. If you try to leave my house after drinking, you will be shortly stopped by the police, after I call them. Now, knowing this, you may choose to have me drive you home, or send you in a taxi, and deliver your vehicle to you the next day if i have been drinking with you.

Don't care if you think you're fit to drive - as a responsible home owner, I can't take that chance. And it's not about being sued, it's about what might happen that I could never forgive myself for. But that's just me.

I understand your concerns, although the police may not since if someone has a drink or two and then drives he or she is legal and frankly the police will not look kindly on your actions. But as for impaired drivers I applaud you.

[August1991]

You want your party to be a good time - an opportunity for you and your guests to unwind. However, when alcohol is involved, things can get out of hand. The risks of death and injury rise sharply with your guests' level of intoxication. Did you know that alcohol is involved in about 42% of fatal traffic crashes and that alcohol-related crashes are the leading killer of Canadians under 40.

The risks are not limited to driving. A large percentage of pedestrian, fire, drowning, boating, and snowmobile deaths involve alcohol. In fact, alcohol-related falls put more people in the hospital, for more days, than impaired driving.

You can be held liable for these deaths and injuries on two separate bases. First, you can be sued as a provider for serving alcohol to intoxicated guests who later injure themselves or others. Second, if the event is on your property or a property under your control, you may be sued as an occupier.

MADD

Keep in mind a pertinent point: There is little good in obtaining a civil judgment against someone who has no assets. One reason to sue a "provider" or an "occupier" is because either they have bottomless pockets (a municipality) or they have liability insurance. I think this point motivates these lawsuits.

[guyser]

MADD

Keep in mind a pertinent point: There is little good in obtaining a civil judgment against someone who has no assets. One reason to sue a "provider" or an "occupier" is because either they have bottomless pockets (a municipality) or they have liability insurance. I think this point motivates these lawsuits.

No doubt .

But let me clarify one thing here. As an occupier , which I believe is one renting a hall or place for a party, you will not be allowed to sign the agreement without a liability certificate being presented. This absolves the municipality that owns such a place.

An injured party will not find a lawyer , at least a good one, to take on a lawsuit against one with no assets or an insurance policy. He knows he will win, but he wont get paid.

[M.Dancer]

No doubt .

But let me clarify one thing here. As an occupier , which I believe is one renting a hall or place for a party, you will not be allowed to sign the agreement without a liability certificate being presented. This absolves the municipality that owns such a place.

An injured party will not find a lawyer , at least a good one, to take on a lawsuit against one with no assets or an insurance policy. He knows he will win, but he wont get paid.

You will also require a special occasion permit from the LLBO. And in that case liability is only one possibility....you fall under the law. While they have never pressed charges against overserving, more that one hall renterhas been fined for over serving, serving minors etc etc etc

[Community Advocate]

It will not cost you a penny more. You have already paid for the lawyers in your homeowners fees.

A penny more than what? What are Homeowner Fees? Never heard of this. I have no homeowner insurance that covers me for the cost of a lawyer in a civil suit over serving alcohol as a host.

There are very few precedents on the books with respect to homeowners, and the recent cases exhonerated the homeowner. Thus the pendulum has swung to the homeowners side.

Can you refer us to one of those recent precedents?

I understand your concerns, although the police may not since if someone has a drink or two and then drives he or she is legal and frankly the police will not look kindly on your actions.

Huh? How so? What would the police think about my actions in this case? The ones I have chatted with look quite favourably on my actions as a host.

But as for impaired drivers I applaud you. Thanks. Want to applaud me for paying my bills and putting my garbage to the curb too? I think it is a responsibility that needs no accolades, its just the right thing to do in my mind.

[Community Advocate]

No doubt .

But let me clarify one thing here. As an occupier , which I believe is one renting a hall or place for a party, you will not be allowed to sign the agreement without a liability certificate being presented. This absolves the municipality that owns such a place.

Yep, it's true.

An injured party will not find a lawyer , at least a good one, to take on a lawsuit against one with no assets or an insurance policy. He knows he will win, but he wont get paid.

Eventually, he may get paid. His wages can be guaransheed, right?

Edited January 18, 2008 by Community Advocate