Corkage in BC

[Keith Talent]

No, you can't bring a bottle on the list, what'd be the point? Where's our restaurant professionals? We need clarification.

[mangez]

One high-end restaurant which will remain nameless, allowed us to bring a bottle, usually corkage is $50, but if your bottle is on their wine list, the corkage becomes the higher of $50 or 10% retail.

[nwyles]

I certainly would not allow someone to bring in a bottle that we served. I would stop just short of telling them to fuck off. I do allow special bottles and then only to guests that I know. It does not happen that often that I create a policy but deal with it on a case by case basis.

As I read some past post re: buying a bottle from the restaurant as well : I would imagine the thought there was that your's was not the only bottle you were drinking at your table that night and that you were purchasing other bottles as well. This practise would be reserved for special bottles that the restaurant might not have access to as it is an older vintage etc. I would not allow someone to bring in a bottle of Mondavi Woodbridge Cabernet Sauvignon 2005. I have allowed flights of Note Bene etc, and then again, only to people I know.

[chef jeff]

I think what 2roost means, and I agree, is that if a restaurant allows you to bring in a special bottle (technically breaking the law for you) buying another bottle off the list to have before or after your special bottle is the polite thing to do. That way the restaurant still sells a bottle of wine, and you get to drink your special bottle. I've done it when I bring in a bottle to another restaurant, and I find that most people will do the same when they bring a bottle into nice restaurants.

And I agree with 2 roost's other "rules" as well. However, I would like to add:

-don't bring yellowtail! (bring in something as nice or nicer than the restaurant has on their list)

Bringing in a special bottle is just that. SPECIAL

not a way to save a buck.

[nondual1]

if a restaurant allows you to bring in a special bottle (technically breaking the law for you) buying another bottle off the list to have before or after your special bottle

not a way to save a buck.

←

Chef Jeff:

Could you share with us the basis for your assertion of "technically breaking the law" with regard to allowing an outside bottle to be served? As we saw above (yesterday), that does not seem to be what the law says. Could there be something that I am missing?

I could certainly understand that there are far more financial reasons for a licensed establishment to disallow outside bottles than to allow them; but isn't it a bit wimpy to hide what essentially is a business decision behind a legal front -- "It's not that I want to make a few more bucks off you serving you wines you don't really want, it's just that the G-man won't allow me not to!"

So, once and for all: where does it say bringining in outside bottles is illegal?

[nwyles]

I know it says " purchased from or served by " but I called Victoria the last time this came up and customers bringing in wine is against the LRB regulations. I would not be willing to put my license up to test this word game and I doubt chef jeff would either. The "professionals" on the board realize this is against the rules and will only "bend" a little for certain guests. I doubt any rule breakers would be doing hard time on the chain gang but if you had a few strikes against you with the powers that be, you could face a fine, or lose the ability to serve alcohol for a few days, weeks or months and that price is too high to play word games with the humourless bureaucrats who run this Province.

[nondual1]

I know it says " purchased from or served by "

←

Look, I certainly understand and respect restaurants' decision to not allow patrons to bring in their own wines. Just as no patron may reasonably expect to be allowed to bring a Big Mac into HSG and consume it there, it is no more expected that he or she may be allowed to bring a Yellowtail or Mouton-Cadet along, especially when there is a perfectly well-stocked cellar to choose from. As business-owners, Neil and others may certainly refuse such intrusion as a matter of course and of business policy, without abash; but then they may bend their "policy" a little for loyal customers, big-spenders and so on, all the same without abash. Allowing in outside bottles is, any way you look at it, a special favour, not an obligation.

So, there's no need to pass the buck for making such a business decision or to yield to the whims and fancies of a particular bureaucrat who happened to answer your inquiry call as if he or she had the power to over-ride the letter of the law. Last I checked, the Charter of Rights -- is that a game of words as well, one wonders? -- is still in effect and Stalin has not returned from the dead. And how many of us have never met a bureacrat who is clueless about the very law he or she is paid to administer?

As patron, I would certainly look more favorably -- and dine more frequently -- at establishments that allow outside bottles. I would just as certainly take care not to abuse such privilleges. That does not mean I would not go to restaurants where such privilleges are not afforded -- but any restaurants that add insult to injury by claiming something legal to be illegal would have a hard time getting my business at all. Too bad if not more of us see things the same way...

[kurtisk]

any restaurants that add insult to injury by claiming something legal to be illegal would have a hard time getting my business at all.

It's illegal, period. Legal jargon aside, we take chances whenever it's done. No one is lying about the legality of it.

Phone up the Provincial Government and ask point-blank.

[nondual1]

It's illegal, period.  Legal jargon aside, we take chances whenever it's done.  No one is lying about the legality of it. 

Phone up the Provincial Government and ask point-blank.

←

So far, so many of you are repeating the same refrain that it is illegal, but few, if at all, are providing any support for it. I would be thrilled if Neil could call up the same person in Victoria that he talked to and ask him or her to supply the citation in the Act or the Regulations where it says point-blank that it is illegal to bring in a bottle of wine. Absent such a citation, the Provincial Government lacks the authority to say it is so.

[nwyles]

It's illegal, period.  Legal jargon aside, we take chances whenever it's done.  No one is lying about the legality of it. 

Phone up the Provincial Government and ask point-blank.

←

So far, so many of you are repeating the same refrain that it is illegal, but few, if at all, are providing any support for it. I would be thrilled if Neil could call up the same person in Victoria that he talked to and ask him or her to supply the citation in the Act or the Regulations where it says point-blank that it is illegal to bring in a bottle of wine. Absent such a citation, the Provincial Government lacks the authority to say it is so.

←

I was on the horn today with someone form Liquor Control about my license. I was tempted to ask again but as I already knew the response I decided against it. If it would put an end to the word play, I will call my contact for clarification and / or a fax about the exact rules. I always hesitate when dealing with bureaucrats because that keeps you top of mind as to why you are asking. No one looks forward to visits from the liquor inspector no matter how squeaky clean your operation is. Think about how you tense up when a cop is following you in traffic even though you are not doing anything wrong. Multiply that feeling when the liquor inspector walks into you joint..................

but I will take one for the team so if we can put an end to this bickering. I will come back with the final word from Victoria. This is not the place to debate about the rules as we can not do anything about them from here. If you are truly concerned, contact your local MLA and chew his ear off as to why you want the ability to bring your own wine into restaurants. ( Have fun storming the castle !! )

[canucklehead]

In the penalities section of the Act - there is further clarification:

"Liquor Service

28 A breach of section 42 (2) of this regulation by permitting liquor not

purchased from the licensee to be consumed in the licensed establishment 4-7 10-14 18-20 $5 000 - $7 000 "

The numbers '4-7' etc represent the number of days that your liquor licence will be suspended for your first, second, etc... offences and the fines that are levied.

Note - there are no subtleties whether the wine being brought in is being served by the staff at the restuarant. It is simple whether or not the liquor was purchased in the licensed establishment.

Having your liquor licence supsended is brutal for a restaurant. Clearly allowing a outside wine into a restaurant does pose a risk for the owner. Nwyles - please take it easy on how you approach your contact. The 'Penalties' section of the act is pretty long.

Edited July 29, 2005 by canucklehead (log)

[chef jeff]

gulp

[Daddy-A]

So far, so many of you are repeating the same refrain that it is illegal, but few, if at all, are providing any support for it.

In the penalities section of the Act - there is further clarification:

"Liquor Service

28 A breach of section 42 (2) of this regulation by permitting liquor not

purchased from the licensee to be consumed in the licensed establishment 4-7 10-14 18-20 $5 000 - $7 000 "

Looks like proof to me. nondual1, unless you're prepared to foot the legal bill on this one to challenge it, I think we can consider this issue closed. Translation: Let's move this discussion along folks.

Neil, kurtis, chef jeff and other industry types ... any knowledge of anyone in town who has suffered one of these penalties due to BYOB?

A.

[chef jeff]

I've never heard of anyone being punished for this. I think generally the liquor inspectors are looking for flagrant abuses of the liquor laws. I think in fine dining, we get left alone a bit more than pubs and bars.

[nwyles]

And I think that is the end of this broadcast.

As I said, I really do not want to call Victoria for clarification of what I already know.

Cheers

Neil

[kurtisk]

And I think that is the end of this broadcast.

As I said, I really do not want to call Victoria for clarification of what I already know.

Cheers

Neil

←

Thanks Neil,

Looks like we're done here.

k.

[mkjr]

Funny the penalties for allowing a licensee, and the employees of the licensee to consume liquor while working in the licensed establishment are pretty steep at "1-3 3-6 6-9 $1 000 - $3 000". Tis odd how some risks are taken very frequently, while others are taken only on a limited basis - despite the penalties.

[i decided to remove my analysis although if you want it PM me. Others can operate as they wish and rely on what Victoria says.]

Edited July 30, 2005 by mkjr (log)

[nwyles]

Neil, kurtis, chef jeff and other industry types ... any knowledge of anyone in town who has suffered one of these penalties due to BYOB?

Honestly, I did not know this was against the regs until last year when I called Victoria about it. I have worked in restaurants that people have been allowed to bring in cases of wine for their Xmas parties etc. I recall seeing "corkage" on a few menues around so it can assumed that it was a legal practice.

I can certainly see where people might think this is an accpeted practice, because as an Industry type, I did.

It has been said upthread that the Control Board has bigger fish to fry and this would seem like small potatoes. I had heard of a restaurant on Commercial Drive that was selling his homemade wine as "House" wine. As he was an older Italian restauranteur, one would assume it was as good if not better than some of the other house wines about but that was not the reason for the fine, which he eventually got. It was primarily about the "safety" factor, but more than likely, about the loss in taxation as there was no tax being paid on this product, from production, to wholesale to the retail level.

I am curious how "that small French restaurant" gets away with it. Are they just flying under the radar ? HAs this fact ever been mentioned in a "flying under the radar" article in town ? Jamie ? Jane ? Anyone ?

edited to remove the name of a French restaurant that has a corkage policy.

Edited July 31, 2005 by nwyles (log)

[seanw]

Neil,

Got something against SdeF? You will have to wait six weeks while they are on holiday to find out your answer.

[nwyles]

Neil,

          Got something against SdeF? You will have to wait six weeks while they are on holiday to find out your answer.

←

Not at all. I am just curious how they are able to do what they do without any hassle from the local Liquor Inspector. Hats off to them if they are blazing a trail for others to follow. I might also wonder if they are too small to get noticed or that no one has complained about it so their corkage policy has not drawn any attention. I do not want to out them so let's not draw any more attention to their policy.

[bigdaddy]

Not only are there regulations regarding the consumption of liquor on the premises...a licensee in BC "may not buy, keep,sell or give ...liquor purchased otherwise obtained from a source other than your designated liquor outlet".(BCLB Terms & Conditions of Licence). The owner is accountable for any "illicit" alcohol found "anywhere" on your premises...and may not "keep or serve liquor bought for private consumption in your establishment". Licensees must keep a detailed register of all liquor purchases, which must be available for inspection at any time.

I have seen an LCB audit, where additional taxes were demanded for staff drinks and alcohol consumed by the restaurant owner.

As for corkage (which is unequivocally against the terms of a BC liquor Licence)...it's often the result of complaints from another licensee when the LCB takes action on such issues. This is a tough business, and corkage can be seen as giving someone an unfair advantage ( as expressed very clearly by an earlier poster! )