Alexandre resto suspended 30 days
Speaking of mobs and restaurants, Alexandre on Peel is facing a thirty‑day shutdown over a list of issues: allowing known mobsters in, staff dealing coke, and breaking Covid rules in 2021. It is not the first time the establishment has found itself in hot water.
I’ve never worked in the restaurant biz. How does a restaurant maintain controls on banned individuals, given that turnover of staff means servers might not be familiar with specific people?
Blork 16:27 on 2023-01-31 Permalink
Also, how can someone be banned from a restaurant — by the law and not just restaurant policy — simply because they are known to be mobsters? What does that even mean? There are tons of people out there who are known to be involved in organized crime but unless you catch them red-handed doing something you can’t just declare that they can’t go to a restaurant simply because we know they’re in the mob.
Or am I missing something? Because otherwise that’s right out of a dictatorship or some kind of monarchy where the king is boss of everything. It doesn’t work like that in a democracy. You can’t legally deny people their rights just because you don’t like them or you suspect they do something you don’t like.
dwgs 17:31 on 2023-01-31 Permalink
That place is douchebag central and during Grand Prix time the douchebag quotient rises exponentially. I am pointing and laughing.
Ephraim 17:37 on 2023-01-31 Permalink
I’m surprised just by the fact that the Quebec government is actually doing something… anything. I mean, we all know that a certain bar owner / restauranteur got caught underpouring and yet they got a slap on the wrist, when they should have been ordered to pour into measured glasses forever. But then, maybe all businesses should be required to pour their beer into measured glasses, like they have to do is much of Europe. Their answer was removing the pour amounts from the menu… voila, no more underpouring
Kate 18:35 on 2023-01-31 Permalink
Blork, I don’t know, but it’s clear from the article that the Régie des alcools, des courses et des jeux (RACJ) can shut an establishment down for allowing the “présence d’individus liés au crime organisé” as it says. I’ve seen occasional references to this kind of thing in news stories before.
I don’t know whether “How was I supposed to know?” carries any weight with that Régie, or – as I was asking – “How was the waiter I hired last week supposed to know who that was, and be certain enough, to deny him service?”
azrhey 19:02 on 2023-01-31 Permalink
It’s not just “mob person goes to restaurant for nice romantic evening with gf” but also “mob person almsot had their own table assigned and is known to spend hours there conducting business”
I know of some restaurants where some people are just nearly always there with a glass of wine or a coffee and a bunch of papers with a merry go round of people walking in and walking out… business is being conducted, sometimes food is had.
Blork 19:06 on 2023-01-31 Permalink
@azrhey, but why is that a legal issue? How can the LAW says they can’t do that? How’s that different from students spending all afternoon in a cafe nursing one latté? (Annoying, yes, but not illegal. And if it’s a problem it should be the cafe or restaurant who bans the person, not the LAW.)
Kate 23:30 on 2023-01-31 Permalink
Blork, I think there’s a distinction here between law, and the rules laid down by the Régie des alcools etc., which governs whether people can have, or can exercise, a liquor license. Having a liquor license is a privilege, not a right.
Blork 01:22 on 2023-02-01 Permalink
I know. I just don’t get this bit where you can lose your liquor license because somebody went into your bar. Or put another way, a person can have the power to make a place lose its liquor license just by walking in the door.
What might be missing from this equation is if the supposed mobsters have actually been convicted of a crime and one of the stipulations of their punishment is that they’re not allowed to go to certain businesses, the way a pedo might be not allowed to go near a school. But all we got from the article is that these people are “known to be mobsters” and I can’t see how that alone can be the basis for any such thing.
Tim S. 08:51 on 2023-02-01 Permalink
Blork: restaurant owners have great discretion in how they treat their guests. As Azrehey said, if someone comes in for a normal dinner, and you don’t give them special treatment, I doubt that will cause a problem – after all, lots of establishments have probably hosted dubious characters every now and then and get to stay open. But do you great them with a giant hug, lead them to their permanently reserved table, trade complimentary bottles for massive cash tips?
That said, hopefully the Regie has a more codified working definition to prevent abuse, but at the moment I don’t think the implementation is as hair-trigger as you fear.
Ian 09:08 on 2023-02-01 Permalink
The law is mostly to prevent places from becoming hotbeds of criminal activity. That said yeah Alexandre is pretty douchey. For example, female staff are encouraged to be “friendly” with select patrons. That said, the coke and mob thing is true of pretty much anywhere downtown that isn’t a student dive.
The place I used to hang out before it got set ablaze had two managers – one who sold the dope, one who sold the coke.
Blork 12:16 on 2023-02-01 Permalink
OMG OK this is my last comment on this. Is it ME who is not being clear? How is I can say the same thing over and over and still people don’t understand what I mean?
Tim S, I have no “fear” of a “hair trigger.” I have no idea where you got that. And I am NOT talking about restaurant policy regarding who is admitted or how to treat people. All I’m trying to understand is how THE LAW can shut down a restaurant because some clients are “known to be mobsters.”
THAT IS NOT HOW THE LAW WORKS. You have to be TRIED AND CONVICTED of something before the law can prevent you from doing something that other people can do freely. There is no mention in the article of these mobsters being tried and convicted of anything. (Maybe they were, and if so, that’s a flaw in the article, and if it’s true then it resolves everything.) Because otherwise you cannot prevent someone from going to a restaurant just because you KNOW they are mobsters (or any other kind of nefarious person). If there is no trial and no conviction there is NO LEGAL BARRIER.
Why is that so hard for people to grasp?
walkerp 12:38 on 2023-02-01 Permalink
because that’s clearly now how the law is working in this case. I recommend you ask a lawyer or somebody in the legal world to explain to you how this works, instead of arguing about it what is clearly going on.
My layman’s guess is they have special laws to deal with organized crime and that is what is being applied here.
Joey 13:21 on 2023-02-01 Permalink
I would imagine that your typical big city mobster, actively conducting business in a fine local eatery (that surely has no financial connection whatsoever to any criminal enterprise), would more often than not be subject to all kinds of probation/parole-related limits on their behaviour. And even though I don’t KNOW HOW THE LAW WORKS because I’m not a lawyer (is *anyone* here a lawyer?) I would imagine that it’s at least *plausible* that there is some provision somewhere in the civil or criminal code that says that if you run a business and you know that criminals are using the business to do crimes and you are aware of the nature of their crimes and you are a direct or indirect sponsor/beneficiary of these crimes and you are probably also a witness or participant in these crimes, you may not be entitled to a liquor license without restriction – even if you haven’t been tried and convicted of anything. Similarly, if you run a restaurant and leave the chicken out, you’ll be fined even if you don’t, you know, sit through a trial.
Kate 15:11 on 2023-02-01 Permalink
Joey: H. John, who often comments here with legal facts, is a lawyer. If any other regular participant can put “maître” before their name they have not let me know.