Regulating Ontario’s Prohibition-Era Standard Hotels: How the “Needs” and “Demands” of Ontario’s Localities Impacted the Board of License Commissioners and the Liquor Control Board of Ontario’s Decision-Making Process, 1916-1934 By Christopher John Nolan, B.A. (Hons.) A thesis submitted to the Faculty of Graduate and Postdoctoral Affairs in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in History Carleton University Ottawa, Ontario © 2014, Christopher John Nolan ii Abstract This thesis examines the regulatory process associated with Standard Hotels operating throughout Ontario during the provincially enforced ban on the consumption of alcohol, 1916- 1934. Due to its position as a publicly available and accessible institution, the Standard Hotel was a highly contested site. The thesis identifies three factors that influenced the State’s granting of a “Standard Hotel License and Light Beer Permit.” These include: the distribution and frequency of establishments throughout the province; the ability for individuals to influence the License and Permit process; and the features and areas of a Standard Hotel that were of greatest concern to the authorities, the operators and members of the general public. The thesis argues that the regulation of Ontario’s prohibition-era Standard Hotels was a highly contentious topic that was subject to the varying “needs” and “demands” of the community. iii Acknowledgements Before beginning, I am sure that there were numerous other individuals that should be included here. However, it has been a long journey and I did not think to make a running list of all those who helped me along the way. Therefore, I apologize to those individuals who assisted me in some manner but are omitted from this list. To those I forgot, thank you. As for those I can recall, I would first like to take the opportunity to thank my supervisor, Dr. Matthew Bellamy. The guidance and counsel you provided throughout this process allowed me to overcome a number of hurdles, concerning my academic abilities, which I never thought possible. I cannot begin to thank you enough for the patience you displayed in the countless meetings, emails, and drafts wherein I struggled to come to terms with what was needed. Simply put, your assistance in all areas related to completing this thesis has been unwavering and more than I could have hoped or asked for. As you said at the beginning, this will be (and was) “fun.” I would also like to thank Carleton University, the Faculty of Graduate and Postdoctoral Affairs, and the Department of History for giving me the opportunity to take up this adventure. In particular, thank you to the Department of History’s tremendous administration staff. Joan, Regina, and Irene, you put in countless hours ensuring the rest of us can focus on our studies. Without the three of you we would all be lost. Additional thanks are owed to any of the Department of History’s faculty members who at one point or another took the time to meet with me and discuss a particular problem I had encountered or who were just interested in my work. In particular, I would like to thank Dr. John Walsh, who among other things, directed me towards a collection of individuals and works that significantly impacted the outcome of this thesis. iv There are also a number of individuals from outside Carleton and the Department of History who assisted me in one manner or another that I would like to thank. Included in this is the staff at the Archives of Ontario who ensured the documents I requested were available and accessible during my short visits. Additionally, I would like to thank both Anne Toews and Joanna Pearce, from York University’s History Department, for being such gracious hosts and for providing me with accommodations while conducting research down at the Archives of Ontario. I would also like to thank numerous individuals who put up with my countless rants and tirades whenever debates surrounding alcohol and public establishments, of any sort, surfaced. This includes my friends, family members, and anyone else that had the unfortunate circumstance of asking me what I was studying. Lastly, I would like to thank Christine. Without your assistance, support, and reassurance none of this would have been possible. v Table of Contents Abstract ii Acknowledgements iii Table of Contents v Abbreviations vi Introduction / Historiography 1 Chapter 1: The Distribution of Ontario’s Standard Hotels and their Compartmentalized Clientele 24 Chapter 2: Relationships: Proprietors, the BLC/LCBO, and Ontario’s Heterogeneous Localities 50 Chapter 3: Real and Imagined Concerns: Construction, Fire Safety, and the Regulation of Space 86 Conclusion 113 Appendix A: Application for Standard Hotel Permit 125 Appendix B: Application for Standard Hotel License 127 Appendix C: Application for Joint Standard Hotel License and Light Beer Permit 129 Appendix D: LCBO License Inspector Report 130 Bibliography 131 vi Abbreviations AO Archives of Ontario BLC Board of License Commissioners LCA Liquor Control Act LCB Liquor Control Board LCBO Liquor Control Board of Ontario LLBO Liquor Licence Board of Ontario OTA Ontario Temperance Act 1 Introduction / Historiography Introduction As a result of the temperance movements that flourished throughout Canada during the nineteenth century, within the first two decades of the twentieth century every Canadian province had instituted legislation that prohibited the distribution and retail sale of intoxicating beverages.1 In Ontario, such legislation was introduced in 1916 and was known as the Ontario Temperance Act (OTA).2 Administration and enforcement of the OTA was the responsibility of the Board of License Commissioners (BLC.) Introduced in 1915, the BLC oversaw all matters concerning the sale of alcohol, including the issuance of hotel licenses. As prohibition never lived up to its billing as a solution for the vices that plagued society, by the mid 1920’s, support for the OTA began to decline. As a result, in 1927 the OTA was replaced with the Liquor Control Act (LCA) -- an act designed to implement a more moderate approach to regulating the retail sale of alcohol.3 With respect to licensing Ontario’s public establishments, where the BLC left off, the Liquor Control Board of Ontario (LCBO) took over. However, the LCBO also assumed the responsibility of managing the provincially operated liquor stores.4 1 Matthew J. Bellamy, "The Canadian Brewing Industry's Response to Prohibition, 1874-1920," Journal of Brewery History, no. 132 (2009): 2; Craig Heron, “Taking the Pledge,” Booze: A Distilled History (Toronto: Between The Lines, 2003) 51-78. 2 J.C. McRuer, The Ontario Liquor Laws, being The Ontario Temperance Act and Amending Acts, 1916 to 1922 (Toronto: Canadian Law Book Company, LTD., 1922). 3 F.P. Brennan, The Liquor Control Act Ontario, Annotated, also the Regulations of the Liquor Control Board of Ontario (Toronto: Canada Law Book Company, LTD., 1928). 4 By all appearances, instances of patronage were either foreign to the LCBO or individuals were wise enough to not be explicit about its existence. In an attempt to ascertain the extent to which patronage was present within the LCBO, sources I examined included: Commissions for Licence Inspectors, RG 53-31, Archives of Ontario (AO); Appointments to Boards of Licence Commissioners, RG 53-32; various Ontario Legislative Assembly Sessional Papers; as well as newspapers such as The Globe and The Ottawa Citizen. 2 Although the public consumption of alcohol was eventually legalized, between the years 1916 and 1934, the OTA and LCA almost entirely prohibited such an activity. The one exception to the restrictions was that provincially regulated hotels were allowed to serve “non-intoxicating” light beer and their patrons were permitted to keep a personal supply of liquor in their “guest rooms.” As a result of this privilege, the regulations governing these establishments were incorporated in the OTA and LCA. This has resulted in alcohol becoming a central theme in the ongoing debates involving the activities and conduct that occurred within Ontario’s Standard Hotels.5 Aside from serving light beer, these establishments were also permitted to sell tobacco products or operate an ice cream parlour, restaurant, or café.6 In order to differentiate between these establishments and those that lacked such privileges, the OTA and LCA defined these hotels as Standard Hotels.7 Nevertheless, as this thesis will demonstrate, Ontario’s Standard Hotels were far more than just public drinking establishments. This thesis aims to fill a historical gap by looking at the regulation and operation of Ontario’s Standard Hotels between the years 1916 and 1934. It seeks to understand how Ontario’s Standard Hotels functioned as a State sanctioned institution that was responsible for fulfilling the numerous, and often conflicting, “needs” and “demands” of Ontario’s diverse localities. Seemingly innocent, terms such as “need” and “demand” were employed by individuals, including members of the BLC/LCBO, proprietors of establishments and member of the general public, in order to demonstrate how a particular Standard Hotel served and accommodated its guests. As a Standard Hotels central purpose was to serve the public, the ability to fulfill the “needs” and “demands” of a locality became a determining factor in the 5 Other studies that discuss the relationship between Ontario’s Standard Hotels and alcohol include: Craig Heron, "The Boys and Their Booze: Masculinities and Public Drinking in Working-class Hamilton, 1890-1946," The Canadian Historical Review 86, no. 3 (September 2005): 411-452; and Malleck, Try to Control Yourself. 6 McRuer, 146; Brennan, 140. 7 Ibid. 3 Standard Hotel License and Light Beer Permit application process. Applied in the most general form, the terms “need” and “demand” might indicate a Standard Hotel provided adequate accommodations or a good meal at a fair price.