Application for Preliminary Injunction in Smoking Bylaw Case - Dismissed

[fredr123]

http://calgary.ctv.ca/servlet/RTGAMA...calgary.ctv.ca

The applicant did not have sufficient evidence of the financial impact on its business to satisfy the second prong of the test needed to be met (i.e. irreparable harm). The affidavit in support of the motion was sworn before the bylaw came into effect. Until last week, the applicant bar had refused to comply with the bylaw. Justice Lutz characterized the applicant's description of the alleged harm suffered as "speculative."

[ken0042]

So, basically this means that the bars do have to wait until the case is heard next month; right?

At least this is a start. Hopefully by February they will see business rebound enough to realize that like in every other major city, the bar industry bounced back.

Or better still; the bars who fought it will lose customers; people like me who won't go into the "still smoking" establishments.

[fredr123]

Originally Posted by ken0042

Or better still; the bars who fought it will lose customers; people like me who won't go into the "still smoking" establishments.

See the cover story on the Calgary Sun on this point. There are 35 bars involved in this litigation but only one of them, Filo's Restaurant, is actually named. By going out and supporting a non-smoking bar, you might actually be supporting a bar that is involved in the bylaw challenge.

If you're out and about, ask the bar owners if they're one of the 35. It would be interesting to see who the others are that remain unnamed.

[fredr123]

Originally Posted by ken0042

So, basically this means that the bars do have to wait until the case is heard next month; right?

Not necessarily. They could pop back into court on two clear days notice with a better affidavit outlining some kind of evidence of irreparable harm. That might at least force the Justice to rule on the other two parts of the test.

Of course, other bars out there still aren't complying with the bylaw. They could continue their current course of non-compliance and simply face the potential fines from the Bylaw Enforcement Department.

[hah]

I've heard that Filos is losing a lot of their business to the nearby Deerfoot Casino.

The City should have made all establishments Non smoking, businsess that are close to Casinos are going be in trouble this year.

[Reaper]

Originally Posted by hah

I've heard that Filos is losing a lot of their business to the nearby Deerfoot Casino.

I'm not surprised. Filo's is a dump of a place located in Deer Run Mall.

[RougeUnderoos]

Forgive my dumdumness, but why do casinos get the free pass? Is it because they "support charity" or some such thing?

[hah]

Originally Posted by Reaper

I'm not surprised. Filo's is a dump of a place located in Deer Run Mall.

It might be a dump, but why should the "unfair" city bylaw force him out of business.

I think all Casinos and Bingo Halls should be non smoking.

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by hah

I've heard that Filos is losing a lot of their business to the nearby Deerfoot Casino.

The City should have made all establishments Non smoking, businsess that are close to Casinos are going be in trouble this year.

Pft. Filios is a dive, who cares.

As for your second point, I totally agree. It has been the cause of this rebellion.

This smoking/gambling crowd are they that prevalent in bars and pubs? Seems the bar and pubs owners are just using this as a loop hole and that they really aren't losing that much business because of this small clientele.

[Hack&Lube]

I don't see why such a clampdown is neccessary. Whatever happened to the smoking room? How does that hurt anybody?

I suppose, perhaps servers or staff that have to go into the room...?

[browna]

Originally Posted by hah

I've heard that Filos is losing a lot of their business to the nearby Deerfoot Casino.

The City should have made all establishments Non smoking, businsess that are close to Casinos are going be in trouble this year.

Having grown up in that general area, there are about 10 pubs closer to Filos then the Deerfoot Casino is. I know that Brewsters in Bonavista is likely closer to Filos then the casino and they have VLT's...I'm betting a couple other ones of those 10 or so have them too.

Kilt and Caber in McKenzie has VLT's too.

Now, maybe all these mentioned VLT places are in the lawsuit, who knows, but if not, Filos has little leg to stand on in an already weak argument, with other VLT establishments adapting and abiding the law. They're likely losing business because they're a dreary hole in the wall, while the other 2 pubs also down in Deer Valley aren't (as much).

Fantastic to go out to the bar or pub the last couple weeks...I don't notice the smoke difference while there, but don't have that hangover and stinky clothes when I get out of there.

[LIP MAN]

Filos is pretty close to my place, didn't go in when it was still allowing smoking. And we used to go there quite often to watch a game but not any more, that is until they have complied to the bylaw, which i believe they are doing.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

I don't see why such a clampdown is neccessary. Whatever happened to the smoking room? How does that hurt anybody?

I suppose, perhaps servers or staff that have to go into the room...?

That is my main problem with allowing smoking....if they had smoking facilities like some bars in Edmonton...where it would be against the law for employees to go in and serve....then I wouldn't have a problem.

Having said that....smoking is becoming socially unacceptable....so might as well just get it over and done with and ban it in all public places. There is no need to smoke in a public place as far as I am concerned.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Burninator

This smoking/gambling crowd are they that prevalent in bars and pubs? Seems the bar and pubs owners are just using this as a loop hole and that they really aren't losing that much business because of this small clientele.

I don't know the numbers, but I've heard those VLTs rake it in for Filo-esque places and the people who play them are also usually boozin it up while they give their money away. Also, I'm no sociologist, but through passive observation I would confidently surmise that the majority of VLT players are also smokers.

Sure it's a loophole, but they do have a point. If you want to smoke, drink and play VLTs are you going to go the place where you can drink and play VLTs or are you going to the place where you can smoke, drink and play VLTs?

[fredr123]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

I don't know the numbers, but I've heard those VLTs rake it in for Filo-esque places and the people who play them are also usually boozin it up while they give their money away. Also, I'm no sociologist, but through passive observation I would confidently surmise that the majority of VLT players are also smokers.

Sure it's a loophole, but they do have a point. If you want to smoke, drink and play VLTs are you going to go the place where you can drink and play VLTs or are you going to the place where you can smoke, drink and play VLTs?

As Mr. Inlow indicated this morning in Chambers, the applicant bar is not zoned to be a gaming establishment. Neither does it hold a business license to be a gaming establishment. There are certain requirements that would need to be met in order to gain those approvals; requirements that the casinos and bingo halls have already obtained. You can't be characterized as one type of establishment for the purpose of one bylaw and a different establishment for another bylaw.

In any event the bylaw doesn't specify the source of revenue for gaming establishments. In other words, simply because you obtain a significant portion of your revenue from VLTs does not make you a gaming establishment.

But I think you hit the crux of the argument, all legalese and tripartite tests aside, that the applicant bar is trying to make. The City's answer is: tough. We knew that would be a possibility, we considered input from bar, casino and bingo hall owners and made this decision notwithstanding the potential for loss of business on your behalf. This is a bylaw made for the public good and in that regard, your private business interests and fear of speculative losses does not outweigh the public good and the City's purview to legislate in such areas. Nyah nyah nyah.

[Slava]

"The City's answer is: tough. We knew that would be a possibility, we considered input from bar, casino and bingo hall owners and made this decision notwithstanding the potential for loss of business on your behalf. This is a bylaw made for the public good and in that regard, your private business interests and fear of speculative losses does not outweigh the public good and the City's purview to legislate in such areas."

That is what the city response should be. If this council had enough of a backbone they would have legislated everything to be non-smoking a few years ago, then we wouldn't even be in this argument today!

On a sort of related note, I had the pleasure of being in Montreal a little while ago. You came home after a night out and didn't reek of smoke...and strangely didn't feel sick either. Strange that the main difference is the non-smoking there!!

[arsenal]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

That is my main problem with allowing smoking....if they had smoking facilities like some bars in Edmonton...where it would be against the law for employees to go in and serve....then I wouldn't have a problem.

So, if a bar has a ventalated smoking room, that employees are not allowed to enter, and force the patrons to go out and get their own alchohol, or served at their other table, what is the problem? If no one but the smokers are being effected, then there shouldn't be an issue. And why has this not gotten any play in the media? I know of at least one bar in bc that you are allowed to smoke inside, but it is in an enclosed smoking room, that is very well ventalated.

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

Having said that....smoking is becoming socially unacceptable....so might as well just get it over and done with and ban it in all public places. There is no need to smoke in a public place as far as I am concerned.

What about Hookah bars? Where the entire point of going there is to smoke and socialize. Should they butt out too? I think Calgary has at least one.

Why stop at smoking as being socially unnacceptable. Why not continue on to the obese?

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by arsenal

Why not continue on to the obese?

I'd be curious to see how many people die each year from second hand eating.

[Phaneuf3]

Originally Posted by ken0042

I'd be curious to see how many people die each year from second hand eating.

probably quite a few going to be coming up over the next 20-40 years. those targetting your kids ad they have for smoking - they need a parallel for eating habits. now what you meant is not QUITE the same... but its not that far of a stretch.

[Antithesis]

Originally Posted by ken0042

I'd be curious to see how many people die each year from second hand eating.

Or how many service industry workers have medical issues due to their clientele overeating.

Smokers really, seriously, need to get with the program. Quit your whining, smoke in your own homes all your want, but not around me or my family.