J.J.'s Pub in Campbell River has landed in hot water after being ordered to pay a $1,000 fine due to a staff member yelling "liquor inspectors" and pointing at them when they entered the pub.

Two liquor inspectors arrived at J.J.'s Pub on May 25 at around 11:37 p.m., providing their ID, identifying them as liquor inspectors. According to the testimony of one of the inspectors given during the hearing in Victoria, the employee at the door allowed them into the club but stopped them just inside the entryway and advised there was a $15 cover charge. 

"Liquor inspector 1 advised the employee that, as liquor inspectors, they are not required to pay a cover charge while conducting inspections," reads the case document from the Liquor and Cannabis Branch hearing on Oct. 22. "The employee then looked surprised and held out his hand to prevent the liquor inspectors from entering further into the pub. The employee started walking beside liquor inspector 1 on her left side and started yelling 'liquor inspectors' while pointing at the liquor inspectors."

According to the document, the employee (positioned between the bar and Inspector 1) followed the duo to the bar while continuing to yell. Liquor inspector 1 notes that people at several tables (holding three to four people) turned their heads to look. 

Once they reached the bar, the person working it identified herself as the manager. The liquor inspectors told the manager that as per the Liquor Control and Licensing Act, liquor inspectors are not allowed to be identified. The employee responded, "I can do whatever the f*** I want in the place."

The testimony of Liquor Inspector 1 notes that the employee was about 6"2 tall, while both inspectors were under 5'5".

Liquor Inspector 1 continued to talk to the manager while Liquor Inspector 2 proceeded to inspect the pub.

"Liquor inspector 1 emphasized to the manager how serious it was that they had been loudly identified, that it jeopardized their safety. Liquor inspector 1 said that the manager alluded to the fact that she did not know this. She further testified that both she and the other inspector felt unsafe performing the inspection."

The duo cut their inspection short.

According to her testimony, the bar's lighting was dim but not dark. A band was playing music, but the employee's yelling was loud enough to get attention from the establishment's patrons. 

Liquor inspector 2's testimony confirmed much of what the first inspector did. 

The manager also testified, contradicting the duo. 

"She recalled two people walking in front of the bar, with the employee trying to get her attention," reads the document. "At first, she could not hear him, and then she heard him say 'liquor inspectors.' She then came around to the front of the bar. She said it was impossible for her to hear him when he was approaching the bar from the front of the door because of the entertainment music. She testified that the employee was not yelling, just letting her know that they were liquor inspectors. She also testified that she did not hear the employee say, 'I can do whatever the f*** I want in this place.' She has known the employee for a long time and described him as a nice and kind person who would not use swear words like that."

The manager said she knew the rule of identifying inspectors but that employees are to inform her when inspectors arrive. She had instructed the employee in the past to come up and talk to her personally. However, she also admitted that she did not call a meeting with staff after the event or discuss it with any of them. 

She also pointed to the employee's notes of the incident in the pub's logbook, which claims the liquor inspector blew past him after he told her to wait and that she followed her to the bar, where he quietly told the manager the inspectors were there. 

The branch hearing concluded that the inspectors' accounts were more reliable than the manager's.  

The pub's owner, Salvatore Guzzo, said he informed right away that the inspectors had come to the pub. He mentioned the manager told him one of the inspectors was very upset, and the other kept walking around the bar. He also said the manager told him she thought if the inspector was worried about her safety, she should have turned around and left. Guzzo also said the employee, who had worked there for six years, probably did not look at the IDs closely enough and was not aware of the duo's profession until he told them about the cover charge. Like the manager, he described the employee as a "very kind, nice person" and would have not sworn. 

Guzzo also alleged the branch has been targeting his pub for the past three years. 

The branch announced the decision on the matter on Oct. 31, agreeing with the inspectors, and imposed a minimum penalty of $1,000. The pub was also given a choice of a one-day suspension of the license but took the monetary penalty instead.