PoorGuy 1098 Report post Posted November 23, 2011 http://www2.gnb.ca/content/gnb/en/news/news_release.2011.11.1274.html I can only think of a few situations that could have caused this. Selling liquor after 2 AM and getting caught, one of the dancers is underage and getting caught, one of the dancers offering a blowjob for $ to an undercover RCMP officer. Penalties are usually a slap on the wrist fine and closure for 10 days. To have the license canceled entirely is unheard of. Does anyone know the owners of Maritime Tile and Concrete Inc.? Powerful family? Ties to gang members? Or was it only just a businessman trying to cater to blue collar workers in Moncton? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest W***ledi*Time Report post Posted November 23, 2011 Craig Babstock reports for the Times & Transcript , 23 Nov 2011: http://timestranscript.canadaeast.com/news/article/1458202 Night Palace found in violation of Liquor Control Act In addition to having its licences cancelled, the Night Palace, located at 151 Mountain Rd., was also ordered to pay fines and hearing costs totalling $3,100. An adjudicator imposed these sanctions as a result of violations under the Liquor Control Act and its regulations in that the licensee failed to comply with licensing conditions as prescribed by the Minister of Public Safety. An adjudication took place Oct. 25 and the adjudicator found the allegations were proven. The lounge and entertainment licences had been granted to Maritime Tile and Concrete Inc., which did business under the name Bikini Beach Nite Club. Michael Comeau, Assistant Deputy Minister with Public Safety's Safety Services Division, told the Times & Transcript there were three allegations heard by the adjudicator. There was an accusation that the licensee permitted liquor to be taken from the premises on Aug. 18. Also, there were allegations that on Aug. 12 and Aug. 18 the licensee failed to comply with the conditions of its licence, contrary to the Liquor Control Act. Comeau said the adjudicator concluded that "the licensee was operating in complete disregard of the stated conditions of his licence and has done so in view of increasing earnings." He went on to say the adjudicator characterized the violations as an "elaborate scheme to circumvent the conditions of the existing entertainment licence and operate in a disguised manner so as to obtain the benefits of the exotic licence." Comeau said the evidence revealed that the licensee was offering exotic entertainment in the licenced portion of the premises, without a licence allowing exotic entertainment. Naked dancing was also offered in a portion of the premises that was not under the Liquor Control Act licence, and this latter operation was "an accessory to" the operation in the licenced portions and one operation could not exist without the other. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
arghy 100 Report post Posted December 9, 2011 so It's never coming back? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
KaceyKatzegeist 152 Report post Posted December 11, 2011 Likely not under the same license to the same person if at all. :/ But hey, he should have applied for the proper licenses. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
