A Terrace, B.C., liquor outlet has been fined $7,000 for selling a teen a six-pack without asking for identification.
The teen was working as a minor agent with the provincial Liquor and Cannabis Regulation Branch, the agency’s delegate R. John Rogers said in his May 1 decision.
Two branch inspectors were doing inspections on licenced establishments in Terrace on Oct. 18, 2023 when they sent the minor agent into Days Inn Liquor Store operated by Clifton Enterprises Inc.
There were three employees present when the youth walked in, went to some coolers, selected a six-pack of blue cans of a vodka drink with an alcohol volume content of five per cent and proceeded to the sales counter.
There, he was greeted by an employee who completed the sale.
The minor was not asked for identification.
The next day, an inspector issued a notice of non-compliance to the licensee.
The licensee testified the employee clearly was distracted when he did not ask the minor for his identification because he had just received bad news about the health of a family member and was not at his best and often on the telephone attempting to get information on her condition.
“The licensee had offered him time off from his work, but he had chosen not to take the licensee up on this offer,” Rogers said.
The store manager said that, after the alleged contravention, he had replaced all the existing signage in the store relating to asking a minor for identification and had added new ones.
Rogers heard there were no written policies or quizzes about identification.
The manager testified a new employee was to carefully observe a customer and make an age determination based upon the customer’s appearance and mannerisms.
“If the new employee thought the customer to be under 25 or 30, then they should ask for two pieces of identification,” Rogers said of the previous policy. “Now, the licensee’s policy is that any customer appearing to be under the age of 30 must be asked for two pieces of identification.”
Rogers found there was not a clear policy at the store for ID procedures.
“The onus of demonstrating due diligence is on the licensee,” Rogers said. “I find that it has not satisfied this onus and I therefore find that the licensee has not met the test for due diligence.”
