Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCRPS-09-057 - Decision of Licensing Tribunal - Spreitzer Meats Inc. REPORT REPORT TO: Chair B. Vrbanovic and Members of the Finance & Corporate Services Committee DATE OF MEETING: May 11, 2009 SUBMITTED BY: R. Gosse - Director of Legislated Services/City Clerk PREPARED BY: R. Gosse ext. 2801 WARD(S) INVOLVED: 6 DATE OF REPORT: April 24, 2009 REPORT NO.: CRPS-09-057 SUBJECT: DECISION OF LICENSING TRIBUNAL - SPREITZER MEATS RECOMMENDATION: That the Decision of the Licensing Tribunal attached to Corporate Services Department report CRPS-09-057, on the matter of the application to renew a business licence under Chapter 563 (Meats) of the Municipal Code for Spreitzer Meats Inc., 128 Bedford Road, be adopted. BACKGROUND: On March 2, 2009, based on Corporate Services Department report CRPS-09-019 Council directed that a licensing hearing be held with respect to the application for renewal of the business licence for Spreitzer Meats Inc., located at 128 Bedford Road. A tribunal consisting of Councillors B. Vrbanovic (chair), G. Lorentz and J. Smola was convened and the hearing took place on April 22, 2009. REPORT: nd At the hearing of April 22, the City was represented by Ms. J. Sheryer, Assistant City Solicitor and the applicant was represented by Mr. A. Wubrick, of the firm Giesbrecht, Griffin, Funk & Irvine. The applicant did not attend the hearing. Evidence provided by the City through testimony from Ms. Shana MacMahon and Ms. Kathy Bromley, Public Health Inspectors for the Region Of Waterloo, and miscellaneous documents submitted as Exhibit ‘A’; proved the following: Between July 27, 2006 and May 23, 2008 there were 8 convictions against Spreitzer o Meats totalling $3445. in fines for violations under the Health Protection and Promotion Act. All but 1 dealt with unsafe storage or handling of food products; On January 16, 2009 an Order was issued by the Public Health Department to close o Spreitzer Meats until various health hazards including mould on meat, rodent droppings, sanitation issues and unsafe storage of food products, were corrected. The business re- st opened on January 21 after 3 re-inspections; ïð¿ ó ï On February 11, 2009 another order to close was issued again for mould, sanitation o th issues and unsafe storage of food products. The business re-opened on February 12.; On April 9, 2009, the Public Health Department had a court order issued against o Spreitzer Meats so that any future infractions would be dealt with in the courts; That with the exception of one infraction regarding failure to install paper towels in the o staff washroom, the last three inspections undertaken by the Public Health Department did not result in any further infractions directly related to the condition and/or storage of meat products; The Public Health Department advised that they have no evidence of anyone knowingly o becoming ill as a result of consuming any product from Spreitzer Meats. In summation, Ms. Sheryer suggested that the City has proven there were issues regarding the safe operation of Spreitzer Meats and the recent Orders in January and February of this year shows a disregard on behalf of the operator/applicant to the charges and orders issued by the Region. Due to the seriousness of the issues, Ms. Sheryer suggested that the application to renew the licence be denied. As an alternative, Ms. Sheryer suggested that should Council not wish to deny the application, that a 60 day suspension take place along with the following conditions: That the applicant and workers at Spreitzer Meats obtain a certificate in Food o Handling; That compliance with clause 6 of the Public Health Order issued January 16, 2009, o continue; That any infractions occurring after the date the licence is issued, are to be reported to o the Business Licensing Office. Mr. Wudrick did not challenge any of the evidence provided by the City advising there have been clear violations and it is a serious matter. He explained that his client takes the issue seriously and has expressed concern that he must comply with the regulations. Mr. Wudrick suggested that in light of the fact that his client has been in business for 50 years yet, the violations have only occurred in the past 2-3 years; the issue may be more about Mr. Spreitzer not understanding changes in rules and regulations and the need for him to better understand what he must do in order to remain in compliance. Mr. Wudrick advised that his client has instructed him to make the tribunal aware he is not looking for his licence to be approved without conditions and that he is willing to comply with any conditions the City deem necessary. Mr. Wudrick summed up his remarks explaining his client has been in business for a long time during which there is no evidence that anyone has become ill from his product however, his client understands he must change his practices. In considering the evidence provided and summations from the City and the applicant’s representative, the tribunal concluded that: Violations of the Health Protection and Promotion Act have taken place that were of a o serious nature; That in the recent past the applicant has been reluctant to change his work processes in o order to remain in compliance as shown by the number of health violations and orders all dealing with the same infractions; There was no evidence that anyone has reported health issues resulting from o consumption of food products from the business; ïð¿ ó î The applicant has been in business for 50 years and the violations presented at the o hearing have taken place during the past 2-3 years; The applicant, through his representative, appears to have concern for the seriousness o of the issues and is willing to undertake the necessary steps to comply and remain in compliance; Should a licence be issued future violations should not be tolerated therefore, conditions o should be in place to ensure any future violations result in revocation of the licence. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: n/a CONCLUSION: The Tribunal, after carefully considering the facts given at the hearing, is recommending that the application to renew the business licence for Spreitzer Meats be approved with strict conditions. The first condition is to suspend the licence for 45 days to ensure the applicant understands how serious the City’s position is on the matter of health and protection of the public. The suspension will also allow the applicant time to remedy outstanding conditions at the business and to comply with the second condition of obtaining a certificate from the Region in food handling. The third condition compelling the applicant to notify the City should there be any future health violations will keep the City informed and aware of how serious the applicant has taken the outcome of this hearing. The last clause of the proposed conditions will require the Manager of Licensing to bring forward a report recommending revocation of the licence should she become aware of any future health violation. The Tribunal feels it has heard the evidence clearly showing the applicant has been in violation of the Health Protection and Promotion Act and a hearing on this evidence shouldn’t be repeated. Future violations should be viewed as a flagrant disregard to the position of the City and the seriousness of the hearing held April 22, 2009. ACKNOWLEDGED BY: Troy Speck – General Manager of Corporate Services ïð¿ ó í Decision of the Licensing Tribunal In the matter of an application submitted by Egon Spreitzer operating Spreitzer’s Meats, Ltd., 128 Bedford Road, Kitchener, Ontario; to renew a Business Licence issued under Chapter 563, of the City of Kitchener Municipal Code entitled “Meat“ That the 2009 application to renew the Business Licence issued to Spreitzer’s Meats, Ltd., 128 Bedford Road, be approved with the following conditions: 1. Upon issuance of the licence, said licence shall be suspended for 45 days. 2. All persons who butcher, processes, prepares or handles any meat or food product for sale and/or distribution at the business premises of the licensee must be certified in Food Safety through the Regional Municipality of Waterloo Public Health Department and such persons must make available upon request from any public health or business licence inspector, proof of certification. 3. The licensee must maintain the premises in a condition that is free from mould and rodents and refrain from processing, preparing, storing, handling, displaying, distributing, selling, giving away free or offering for sale, any meat or other food product that has mould or that has been contaminated by rodents or otherwise is unfit for human consumption by reason of impurity, spoilage, disease and/or adulteration. 4. Following issuance of the business licence and from that date forward, the licensee must immediately inform the City of Kitchener Business Licensing Office of any infraction or violation resulting from an inspection conducted after that date by the Regional Municipality of Waterloo Public Health Department and/or Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. That should the Manager of Licensing for the City of Kitchener obtain evidence that the licensee is not in compliance with these conditions, the Manager shall submit a report to the Council for the City of Kitchener, outlining the contravention and evidence and recommending immediate revocation of the business licence; and further, Notwithstanding condition No. 1, these conditions shall remain a requirement of obtaining, continuing to hold or renew a licence in the name of Spreitzer Meats if Mr. Egon Spreitzer is an officer of the company. April 22, 2009 ______________________ _______________________ _______________________ Councillor Berry Vrbanovic Councillor Geoff Lorentz Councillor John Smola Chair Member Member ïð¿ ó ì