HomeMy WebLinkAboutCRPS-09-099 - Spreitzer Meats Tribunal DecisionREPORT T0: Mayor C. Zehr and Members of Council
DATE OF MEETING: June 29, 2009
SUBMITTED BY: R. Gosse - Director of Legislated Services/City Clerk
PREPARED BY: R. Gosse ext. 2809
WARD(S) INVOLVED: 6
DATE OF REPORT: June 24, 2009
REPORT NO.: CRPS-09-099
SUBJECT: DECISION OF LICENSING TRIBUNAL JUNE 2009 -
SPREITZERMEATS
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Decision of the Licensing Tribunal attached to Corporate Services Department
report CRPS-09-099, to revoke business licence No. 2009 109210 00 L6 issued to
Spreitzer Meats,128 Bedford Road, Kitchener, Ontario, be adopted.
BACKGROUND:
On April 22, 2009, a tribunal consisting of Councillors B. Vrbanovic (chair), G. Lorentz and J.
Smola held a hearing regarding a business licence application to renew the licence for Spreitzer
Meats Inc., located at 128 Bedford Road. The decision of the tribunal to issue a licence for 2009
with conditions including, amongst other things, a 45 day suspension, was adopted by Council
on May 11, 2009.
At the same meeting of Council, a recommendation from the Finance and Corporate Services
Committee to convene another tribunal to hear a matter regarding the licence issued to
Spreitzer Meats, was adopted. On June 22, 2009 a hearing was held with the same members of
Council sitting as the tribunal.
REPORT:
At the hearing of June 22nd, 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 was also in attendance.
Evidence provided by the City through testimony from Ms. Julie Kalbfleisch, City Licensing
Inspector, Ms. Shana MacMahon and Ms. Kathy Bromley, Public Health Inspectors for the
Region Of Waterloo, and miscellaneous documents submitted as an addendum to Exhibit `A'
from the April 22nd hearing, established the following:
o On May 1, 2009, a licensing inspection of the business took place and the inspector
found the business open. The licensee informed the inspector that he had a receipt for a
licence but as of that time, had not received the actual licence. The inspector advised
the licensee that he can not operate the business without a licence. The inspector
12-1
observed what appeared to be a customer loading meat into their vehicle and the
licensee stated that he had orders to fill.
o On May 7, 2009, a second licence inspection took place and the inspector observed the
`closed' sign on the door but the door was unlocked and the premise was open. The
inspector entered and observed the licensee counting money however, there were no
customers on the premises.
o On May 29, 2009, a third inspection took place at which time the inspector observed the
`closed' sign was on the door but the door was unlocked and the premise was open.
Upon entering the business, the inspector observed three males, 2 females and the
licensee. One male left with a package of meat and the licensee was wearing an apron.
There was raw meat in open sight and she observed meat being loaded into a car and a
van. The licensee advised he had received his licence but he had forgotten to post it.
o On June 5, 2009, the inspector attempted a fourth inspection of the premises however,
found the `closed' sign on the door and the business was locked.
o On April 29, 2009, Ms. K. Bromley, Regional Health Inspector, inspected the premises
and observed the `open' sign on the door and the business open. The licensee and two
workers were working on the premises. No health violations were found.
o On May 7, 2009, Ms. K., Bromley and S. MacMahon, conducted an inspection of the
business and observed that the `closed' sign was on the door however the door was
unlocked and the business open. They observed a person load raw meat into their
vehicle and an exchange of money. No health violations were found.
o On May 19, 2009, a second inspection was made by the health inspectors and they
found the `closed' sign on the door and the business was locked.
o On June 2, 2009, a third inspection was made by the health inspectors and they
observed the `closed' sign on the door however the door was unlocked and the
business was open. Upon entering the business they observed the licensee and a
female working. No health violations were found.
o On June 18, 2009, a fourth inspection was made by the health inspectors and they
observed the `open' sign on the door and the business was open. The licensee and
workers were working inside. The inspection revealed uncovered raw meat in the cooler
and a large piece of meat hanging in the cooler had a small amount of white mould on
the exterior. A portion of the meat containing the mould was cut away and discarded
and the raw meat was covered. The inspectors explained that although technically the
uncovered meat and the mould was in violation of the Health Protection and Promotion
Act, it was felt the infractions did not require an order being issued as the situation was
quickly rectified.
Councillor G. Lorentz inquired if the health inspectors were aware that Mr. Spreitzer andlor any
of the workers at the business, had completed the Food Safety certification offered by the
Region and in accordance with the conditions of the business licence. Ms. MacMahon advised
that Mr. Spreitzer did ask about the course telling her the June class was full.
Mr. Egon Spreitzer gave testimony stating that he understood the reasons for the hearing this
date and understood the different roles played by the City and Region with respect to inspecting
his business. He advised that he made inquiries regarding the Food Safety certification but the
June course was full and the next one would not be held until August 2009. He advised that he
was aware of the seriousness of the hearing and that he would cooperate fully in order to
remain in business. He added that there have been improvements made regarding the
12-2
inspections and he planned to cut back the hours of operation to ensure the business continued
to meet the requirements of the health inspections. When asked by Ms. Sheryer, Mr. Spreitzer
explained that he understood he was to be closed however, when the health inspectors told him
the business was satisfactory, he took that to say he could re-open. In answer to a question
from Councillor B. Vrbanovic, Mr. Spreitzer advised he understood he had to take the Food
Safety course but did not know he could not operate the business until then.
In summation, Ms. Sheryer, suggested that from the inspectors evidence it was clear that
Spreitzer Meats was operating during a time when it should have been closed due to the
suspension imposed as a result of the previous licence hearing. She pointed out that although
the 2 health violations found on June 18t" were not dealt with as an order or in contravention of
the current court order, they are considered to be critical and show that improvements have not
taken place. Ms. Sheryer recommended that in consideration of the continued health infractions
and disregard for the conditions approved by Council, the tribunal should revoke the licence.
Mr. Wudrick did not challenge any of the evidence provided by the City advising there has been
serious confusion by his client as to what is required under the business licence. He explained
that his client confused the messages from the inspectors and when he received a good
inspection from the regional health inspectors, he thought it was okay to re-open his business.
Mr. Wudrick also suggested there have been improvements made with respect to food handling
as only one of the five inspections conducted since April 29t" resulted in an infraction and that
one didn't warrant an order. Mr. Wudrick requested that his client be allowed to continue with his
business but in light of the facts given at this hearing, an extension of the current suspension
would be appropriate.
In considering the evidence provided and summations from the City and from the applicant and
his representative, the tribunal concluded that:
o There has been another violation of the Health Protection and Promotion Act showing
that despite the previous hearing and the conditions placed on the business licence, the
licensee has not shown improvements in proper food handling practices;
o That proper food handling is extremely important for the safety of the licensee's
customers and must betaken seriously;
o That there were clear violations of the conditions set out in the business licence
including: being open during the 45 day suspension; operating the business without first
obtaining the Food Safety certificate offered through the Region of Waterloo; and,
maintaining the premises in a condition that is free from mould;
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
n/a
CONCLUSION:
The tribunal having considering the evidence and testimony unanimously agreed that due to the
seriousness of the infractions and the flagrant disregard to the conditions imposed on the
licence as a result of the previous hearing, it be recommended that the business licence issued
to Spreitzer Meats be revoked.
ACKNOWLEDGED BY: Troy Speck -General Manager of Corporate Services
12-3
Decision of the Licensing Tribunal
In the matter of Business Licence No. 2009109210 00 L6, issued under Chapter 563, of the
City of Kitchener Municipal Code entitled "Meat" to Egon Spreitzer operating Spreitzer's
Meats, Ltd.,128 Bedford Road, Kitchener, Ontario;
That under authority of Section 151 (1) (b) of the Municipal Act, 2001, as amended,
Business Licence No. 2009 109210 00 L6 issued to Spreitzer's Meats, Ltd., 128
Bedford Road, is hereby revoked.
June 22, 2009
Councillor Berry Vrbanovic Councillor Geoff Lorentz Councillor John Smola
Chair Member Member
12-4