A Vancouver taco restaurant has been fined $7,000 after inspectors used minor agents to determine if identifications were being checked for alcohol service at the Mount Pleasant eatery.
Liquor and Cannabis Regulation Branch delegate Paul Devine said in his Sept. 11 decision that Tacofino was found to have breached its licence when one of two minor agents aged 17 and 18 were served beer.
The minors were employed under the Minors as Agents Program, which authorizes the branch to employ minors to ensure that B.C. liquor licensees comply with legislation prohibiting the sale of liquor or cannabis to underage people.
The two minor agents entered the restaurant on the evening of March 2. Two inspectors followed.
Once inside, the minors were seated close to the entrance while the inspectors sat not far away.
Devine said a server gave the minors water and one of them ordered a beer.
When the beer arrived, Devine said, the minors left with one inspector while the other took photographs of the draft beer and told the server that he would pay for it.
“The inspector paid for the beer with a $20 bill and received a receipt,” Devine said. “The inspector then asked to speak with the manager on duty in the facility. “
They explained the situation and asked for the staff’s Serving it Right (SIR) certificates.
The inspector then advised the licensee it would receive an electronic notification of non-compliance.
The restaurant manager testified that any customer who appeared to be under 35 years of age was to be asked for identification.
"The server who was involved told her he had made a mistake by serving a minor without asking for ID,” Devine said. “The server had his SIR certificate and had gone through the employee orientation and training program.”
The server was sent home. The restaurant’s alcohol service policy has since been updated.
“The general manager testified that there are no signs inside the premises of the licensee to advise patrons of the ID under 35 policy,” Devine said. “The staff do not receive specific training on how to assess whether a customer appears 35 or older.”
Still, Devine said, the human resources manager testified that there is one one-on-one training of staff about how to ask for ID, and what is acceptable ID.
Devine noted a training manual specified that employees were to ID anyone who appeared to be under 35.
Further, he said, "steps taken by the licensee afterwards do not provide a basis to establish the defence.”
Devine found the restaurant did not have satisfactory training and education for servers at the time of the incident.
