HomeMy WebLinkAboutCRPS-06-007 - Request to Amend Schedule "A" - Business Licence Procedures for all Applicable Chapters in Municipal CodeReport To: Councillor B. Vrbanovic, Chair and Members of the Finance
and Corporate Services Committee
Date of Meeting: January 9, 2006
Submitted By: R. Gosse, Director of Legislated Services/Deputy City Clerk
Prepared By: Patricia Harris, Manager of Licensing
Ward(s) Involved:
Date of Report: December 28, 2005
Report No.: CRPS-06-007
Subject: REQUEST TO AMEND SCHEDULE "A" -BUSINESS
LICENCE PROCEDURE FOR ALL APPLICABLE LICENSING
CHAPTERS IN THE CITY OF KITCHENER MUNICIPAL
CODE
RECOMMENDATION:
That staff prepare an amendment to Schedule "A" -Business Licence Procedure for all
applicable Licensing Chapters in the Municipal Code to change the word `shall' to "may"
in Section 7 of that Schedule and further;
That staff initiate the required public process with respect to the amending Schedule.
BACKGROUND:
In late 2004, City Council passed various business licensing by-laws that each included a
Schedule "A" -Business Licence Procedure. This Schedule sets out the procedure that the
Manager of Licensing is to follow when an incomplete application is received or when an
application or licensee does not meet the requirements of the by-law or contravenes any other
by-law or federal or provincial statute. It also sets out the nature of penalties that Council may
hand out to a Licensee such as refusal, suspension, revocation or adding of conditions to the
licence.
Prior to these new by-laws being passed, the Manager of Licensing was given discretion to
determine when a licence application or licensee was required to appear before Council or a
Committee of Council. Schedule "A" now states the Manager "shall" refer an incomplete
application to Council in certain circumstances removing any previous discretion. This lack of
discretion has created problems over the past year.
REPORT:
Section 7 of Schedule A -Business Licence Procedure states that:
"The Manager of Licensing shall refer an application or a licence to Council where:
a} the applicant or licensee does not meet the requirements of this Chapter or any other
applicable by-law;
b} there are reasonable grounds for belief that an application or other document
provided to the Manager of Licensing...contains afalse statement or provides false
information;
c) the past or present conduct of any person, including the officers, directors,
employees or agents of a corporation affords reasonable cause to believe that the
person will not carryon or engage in the business in accordance with the law or with
honesty and integrity;
d} without limiting the generality of Section 7(c), any person, including the officers,
directors...of a Corporation has contravened this Chapter or any other by-law or
federal or provincial statute or regulation while conducting the business..."
e} any special conditions placed on a former or current licence of the applicant or
licensee under this Chapter have not been met;
f) the provision of this Chapter provide grounds not to issue or renew in the
circumstances.
The word "Shall" is a mandatory word that does not allow the Manager of Licensing to use any
discretionary power when a licensee or applicant is in contravention of any of the above
conditions, however minor. Several difficulties have been encountered in the past year due to
the mandatory requirement of referring these applications or licences to Council.
When a licensee is charged with a by-law infraction and acknowledges their guilt, the licensee
may wish to enter a guilty plea. Guilty pleas can save court and staff time, reduce costs and
bring a quick conclusion to the matter. If a licensee is aware that even if the offence they have
committed is minor, and they have acknowledged their guilt and taken all necessary steps to
ensure future compliance that they will still be required to appear at a Licensing Hearing upon a
conviction being registered, this may deter them from entering a guilty plea. This becomes
especially relevant when the defendant is aware that the by-law contemplates suspension or
revocation of a licence through the hearing process.
In some cases, a business or individual may be in contravention of certain licensing by-law
requirements at the time of their application. The Licensing Section would like to have the
discretion to work with the licenseelapplicants towards making the necessary arrangements to
ensure compliance. Without the proposed discretionary power for the Manager of Licensing,
the Manager of Licensing would be forced to refer even minor matters that could be amicably
resolved to licensing hearings notwithstanding the co-operation of the applicant. This would
limit the incentive for an applicant to cooperate with licensing recommendations and also
negatively impact the Licensing Section's ability to maintain cooperative relationships with area
businesses. Additionally, this would likely increase the number of Licensing hearings that must
be held.
Although the change from "shall to "may" appears relatively minor, it affords the Manager of
Licensing more discretionary power so that the Manager of Licensing can use common sense in
determining whether an application or licence should be brought to a Licensing hearing. The
most serious of violations would still be brought to Council to allow Council to determine the
appropriate consequences.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
The Municipal Act requires that a public meeting be held before passing a licensing by-law and
that notice be given to allow the public an opportunity to make comment. The notice in this case
will be in The Record at an estimated cost of $500.00.
(MRS) PATRICIA HARRIS
MANAGER OF LICENSING