A pub in Courtenay was fined for letting a customer who was too intoxicated stay on the premises.

The Whistle Stop pub was fined on March 19 by the BC Liquor and Cannabis Regulation Branch about a November incident. According to court documents, the pub contravened the act when "it permitted an intoxicated person to enter or remain in the service area of the establishment."

According to a , on Nov. 2, two inspectors were carrying out public safety inspections in Campbell River and Courtenay. They arrived at the Whistle Stop Pub at approximately 11:36 p.m., and, having not been greeted at the door by staff, seated themselves without announcing their presence at a booth opposite each other so they could have a clear view of the establishment. 

After around fifteen minutes, one inspector saw a patron who "appeared to be unsteady on her feet with drooping eyes."

"When she reached the booth, (the inspector) noted that (the patron) sat down heavily into it, dropping into it rather than lowering herself to be seated, and when she made contact with the booth sliding down the backrest of the booth," the report says, adding that she "immediately leaned sideways into the male patron seated in the corner of the booth."

The patron was also observed "having her head resting on the table adjacent to the booth and with one of the males sitting beside her rubbing her back."

The fellow patrons were speaking among themselves about the individual in question, particularly about how she would be getting home, the report says. The patron in question was given a glass of water by another person sitting at the same table.

The inspectors then saw the patron get "up from the booth in which she was sitting and walk unsteadily towards the front entrance doors of the establishment accompanied by one of the males with whom she had been sitting."

Over the next five to ten minutes, the patron was passed by employees of the bar while having her head on the table. She was given another glass of water by a fellow patron, and "lifted her head with her eyes closed, opened her mouth wide, and used her tongue to find the straw in the glass. After a couple of sips of water, (the patron) returned to resting her head on the table of the booth for the next three minutes," the report says.

At 12:12 a.m., the inspectors saw her get up and exit the bar "appearing to be very unsteady on her feet."

"During the 22 minutes that (the patron) was sitting at the booth, the inspectors observed the employees of the licensee passing in close proximity to (her) on multiple occasions, without such employees stopping to inquire about (the patron)鈥檚 condition," the report says.

The inspectors then identified themselves to the bartender and told him about what they'd seen.

"The bartender advised the inspectors that the licensee鈥檚 policy was that when the licensee鈥檚 employees identified an intoxicated patron that they were to provide this patron with water and to call them a cab," and he "stated that the licensee was short staffed and apologized for not having seen (the patron)."

The inspectors then issued a notice of non-compliance by email to the bar.

During the hearing, the Whistle Stop Pub representative testified that the person in question had been refused entry to the bar earlier that night, and that she had called a taxi to take her home. However, "she was told that due to the festival that was occurring in the neighbourhood, it would take between one and one and a half hours or longer for the taxi to arrive," the report says.

The patron was asked to come into the bar to wait for the cab.

"As (she) was a 20-year-old woman who was obviously intoxicated and scantily clad, the licensee鈥檚 staff made the decision that rather than make her wait outside in the cold in what was for her an unsafe area, that they would permit her to come into the establishment while she waited for the taxi that she had called," the report says. "(She) was served only water, was not served any liquor, and was permitted to sit with acquaintances while she waited, which acquaintances apparently provided her with a green shirt observed by the Inspectors, as (the patron) was obviously cold."

The representative also said that staff had "kept an eye on her at all times."

"The licensee鈥檚 representative testified that, since the occurrence of this event, he has made arrangements with a 7-11 Store that is in the neighbourhood of the establishment which has double entry doors," the report says. "In the area between the entry doors, the store permits people waiting for a taxi to come in out of the cold and to wait in safety."

During the hearing, the bartender said that he "should have advised them that he was aware of (the woman) and her intoxicated state," and that "He should have told the inspectors that (she) had told staff members that she did not want to be served, but that she had asked to and was permitted to sit in the establishment as she had told them that she was waiting for a taxi and did not want to wait outside in the cold in a dangerous neighbourhood."

The bartender also testified that there were staff meetings on a semi-regular basis, but that "given the licensee鈥檚 representative dislike of paperwork, there is no agenda for these staff meetings, nor is attendance taken, nor are there minutes kept of the proceedings."

He also said that it fell to employees to "discuss matters among themselves during and following these meetings," the report says.

The bar's representative submitted that since the bar staff had "acted in a proper manner" and that "it was not liable therefore as it had established that it had been duly diligent and that, therefore, the defence of due diligence applied."

However, the branch's decision says that it questioned "whether the licensee鈥檚 staff members did indeed ensure that (the woman) 'departed safely.' Indeed, on the evidence before me, it rather appears that (she) acted on her own initiative with the assistance of her acquaintances," based on the testimony that the inspectors were not greeted at the door, and did not observe staff confront or speak to the patron.

And the branch said that the bar "staff had a strict obligation to firstly deny (the woman) in her intoxicated state entry to the service area of the establishment. Then, if (she) was permitted to enter the service area, they were to deny her service, they were to actively remove her, and they were to ensure that she departed safely. However, the evidence suggests that rather than being actively involved with (the woman) upon her entry into the service area, the licensee鈥檚 staff depended upon (the woman)'s acquaintances to look after her, to provide her with water, and then to ensure that she safely exited for her ride home.

"In light of all the evidence demonstrating a series of inactions on the part of the licensee鈥檚 staff, I find that (the patron) was permitted to enter into and was allowed to stay in the service area of the Establishment on November 2, 2024. The licensee is therefore liable for the contravention as alleged in the NOEA (Notice of Enforcement Action)."

The branch also determined that there was "little evidence that the licensee has in place the requisite systems together with their effective application and operation to generate a culture of strict compliance within the establishment."

The bar was issued a $3,000 penalty.