Issues to Watch.

This is a monthly discussion of "issues to watch" in the field of alcohol policy.

June 2006

 

Social Host Liability

The topic of social host liability was highlighted in last months' "Issues to Watch". Since that time, the Supreme Court of Canada has presented a unanimous decision ruling that social hosts "as a general rule" are not liable for injuries caused to third parties by drunk guests.

Despite the Court hearing the tragic story of Ms. Zoe Childs — a young women now bound to a wheelchair for life and coping with the loss of her boyfriend all due to a drunk driver — the Court argued that sound public policy cannot be based on gut emotions.

To some, this is considered a logical standard, arguing that any other decision would have placed an unreasonable burden on ordinary Canadians, who might think twice about hosting dinner parties if they could later be sued for injuries caused by their guests.

Others, however, feel this ruling is a major step back in alcohol policy and do not see it as an "unreasonable burden" by simply asking Canadians to "think twice" about their hosting practices.

This ruling has even given some people the false impression that they are not responsible for others who drink on their property or in their homes.

"A host could still be held responsible for injuries or accidents that result from allowing under-aged guests to drink, or for alcohol-related injuries that occur on their property," clarifies Andrew Murie, CEO of MADD Canada. "And certainly people injured by drivers who became intoxicated at your party can continue to sue you in civil court."

"We have to keep in mind that serving alcohol to guests in our homes or at our cottages can have some very real dangers, and in some cases, very tragic consequences", adds Dr. Robert Mann of the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health.

Although the Court has ruled people who host private parties are normally not on the hook legally for the actions of partygoers, the Court did leave open the possibility of finding liability in cases where "the host's conduct implicates him or her in the creation or exacerbation of the risk." Further, this ruling does not affect the decision made in 1995, which states that bars and restaurants may be held liable if a drunk patron drives away and injures a third party. The Court said such businesses operate under strict regulations and are expected to protect the public interest.

Regardless of the law, a good host should still ensure the safety of their guests through the suggestions made recently by local health organizations Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, MADD Canada, and the Ontario Public Health Association:

  • Do not combine alcohol with potentially dangerous activities, such as boating or swimming.
  • Check the premises for potential hazards. Alcohol affects balance, judgment and coordination. Even minor changes, such as locking the gate to your pool, can reduce risks significantly.
  • Do not make drinking the focus of your party.
  • Do not permit drinking competitions or other practices that promote intoxication.
  • Make food available. Guests who have eaten absorb alcohol at a slower rate than those who have not, thereby lowering their peak blood-alcohol level.
  • Stop serving alcohol well before the completion of your party. Also offer your guests non-alcohol drinks and low-alcohol drinks.
  • Be attentive of your guests.
  • Do not serve alcohol to a guest who is already intoxicated.
  • Arrange for safe transportation. Make sure that guests who may be under the influence of alcohol have transportation arrangements that do not involve them driving, or getting into a car with someone who has been drinking.
  • Prepare for overnight guests. Arrange for a guest who may be intoxicated to stay the night.
  • Don't drink too much yourself. You can stay on top of potential problems better when you can think clearly and act quickly.

"We're not talking about abstinence," clarifies Denise DePape, Chair of the Alcohol Workgroup at the Ontario Public Health Association. "But we are asking people to be responsible and keep in mind that we have a moral obligation towards our guests, as well as to the larger community."

As The Toronto Star simply sums up: "It's the responsible thing to do."

Agency Stores

On May 15th 2006, the Ontario government broke an election promise by announcing plans to open another 20 privately-owned LCBO "agency stores". This will bring the total number of agency stores to approximately 215.

The Ontario Public Service Employees Union (OPSEU) representing over 6,000 employees at the LCBO are deeply concerned about this expansion.

Primarily, the private agency store program presents a threat to the LCBO's publicly-owned retail stores and to public health, community safety and the LCBO's social responsibility mandate.

Research shows a public alcohol retail distribution system is typically more restrained than their private counterparts in promoting alcohol sales and more likely to aggressively challenge and refuse to sell alcohol to underage youth and the already intoxicated. Public monopolies also moderate the political influence of private corporate alcohol sellers who have a vested interest in boosting alcohol sales as outlined in a recent letter sent by the Ontario Public Health Association [PDF].

"Essentially, the only potential benefit of providing alcohol through agency stores is to increase customer convenience through increased number of outlets, outlet density, and hours of operation, all of which have been shown to increase alcohol consumption and alcohol-related problems," states Dr. Garry Aslanyan, President of OPHA [PDF], quoting a recent research review.

As a provincial agency, the LCBO has a mandate to ensure that alcohol is sold safely and responsibly. "Over the long term, the continued expansion of the agency store program into communities that are already served by nearby LCBO outlets threatens to erode the network of public LCBO stores — and their ability to ensure that alcohol is sold responsibly," concluded Leah Casselman, OPSEU President through a recent APOLNET listserv posting.

The OPSEU and OPHA strongly feel that this expansion requires an immediate public review of the agency store program before taking effect, and are encouraging others to send a similar message.