Landlords often tell us they only broke the rules because they felt they had no other choice.
“I changed the locks because the tenant stopped paying rent.”
“I shut off the electricity to force the tenant to leave.”
“I threw the tenant’s belongings onto the lawn after they abandoned the unit.”
“I entered the rental unit without proper notice.”
While these decisions may seem reasonable at the moment, Ontario’s tribunals and courts have repeatedly held that frustration does not justify breaking the law.
A recent decision by the Licence Appeal Tribunal illustrates this principle perfectly.
The Case
In 1595257 Ontario Ltd. o/a Southside Johnny’s Bar and Grill v. Registrar under the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario Act, 2019, the Tribunal considered whether a restaurant should lose its liquor licence after management repeatedly purchased stolen liquor and merchandise, from individuals living in a nearby encampment.
The evidence showed that the restaurant owner, John Theodorakakis, and his manager, Yasmin Gomes, knowingly purchased stolen goods over a period of six to twelve months. Surveillance by the LCBO’s Organized Retail Crime and Intelligence Unit observed stolen liquor being taken from LCBO stores and delivered directly to the restaurant. The manager admitted purchasing the liquor and even requested specific brands from the individuals supplying the stolen products.
Why Did They Do It?
The owner did not deny what had happened but he argued he had a legitimate reason to do so.
According to his testimony, individuals from a nearby encampment had been harassing the restaurant, bothering customers, damaging property, stealing licence plates, spray-painting graffiti, and leaving human feces at the entrance of the business. He estimated the damage to his property at between $5,000 and $6,000. Eventually, he began purchasing the stolen goods simply to “keep the peace.” His hope was that if he bought the merchandise, the harassment would stop.
The Tribunal accepted that this was his genuine motivation, however, accepting the explanation did not mean accepting the conduct.
The Tribunal’s Findings
The Tribunal found that purchasing stolen property was not an isolated mistake. It was a deliberate and repeated course of conduct that occurred several times each week over many months.
Management admitted they knew the goods were probably stolen. Some of the stolen liquor and merchandise was kept at the restaurant, while other items including liquor, food and perfume, were taken home for personal use.
The Tribunal also found that the restaurant breached Ontario’s liquor regulations by possessing liquor that had not been legally purchased through authorized channels and by transferring leftover liquor into “overage bottles” for later sale, contrary to the regulations governing licensed establishments.
“Keeping the Peace” Was Not Enough
Perhaps the most interesting part of the decision appears in paragraphs 40 through 42.
The Tribunal accepted that the owner genuinely believed purchasing the stolen goods was the easiest way to protect his business and employees. However it concluded that he had lawful alternatives. He could have refused to buy the stolen property, or contacted the police about the harassment. Instead, he chose to participate in illegal activity on a regular basis.
The Tribunal found that this conduct demonstrated a lack of honesty and integrity and concluded that the restaurant could no longer be trusted to operate in accordance with Ontario’s liquor laws. As a result, it ordered that the liquor licence be revoked.
The Lesson for Landlords
Although this case has nothing to do with residential tenancies, the legal principle applies equally to landlords. Many landlords face difficult situations. Some deal with unpaid rent. Others experience property damage, threats, harassment, or repeated lease violations.
It is understandable to become frustrated. What this decision reminds us, however, is that Ontario decision-makers generally ask one simple question, did you follow the law? Good intentions, financial hardship, frustration, or even genuine concern for your property rarely excuse conduct that violates legislation.
The Tribunal acknowledged the owner’s difficult circumstances. It believed the harassment had occurred. It sympathized with the pressure he was under. Yet it still concluded that repeatedly purchasing stolen property was unlawful and incompatible with holding a liquor licence. The same principle frequently applies in landlord-tenant disputes.
When legal remedies are available even if they are slow or frustrating, landlords are expected to use them instead of taking matters into their own hands.
Sometimes the legal process feels unfair, but taking shortcuts often creates a much larger legal problem than the one you were trying to solve, and that is a lesson every Ontario landlord should remember.
Source:
https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onlat/doc/2026/2026canlii71308/2026canlii71308.html
