WTF?

Tapsucker · Post by **Tapsucker** » Sat Sep 27, 2014 10:53 am

Here's another stupid regulation I have never heard of. They just keep coming.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/tor ... e20815762/

Perhaps they should be forced to sell their beer in square blue bottles? Or maybe only on Tuesdays? Actually, that last one makes sense; only Tuesdays, that should somehow make sure kids don't get drunk. Won't somebody pleeeeze think of the children?

MatttthewGeorge · Post by **MatttthewGeorge** » Sat Sep 27, 2014 11:10 am

Bellwoods will be faced with limited options. They can incorporate a second, separate business at the Dupont location, but they wouldn’t be able to sell beer made there at their Ossington shop, so they’d still be running out. They can open without a retail shop, but ending a brewery tour with nothing to buy isn’t a winning business strategy. Or they can close the popular Ossington location, to the frustration of the customers that have supported them since they opened in 2012.

Stupid law which I'm 100% against, but wouldn't another option be to only sell out of the new location and have the Ossington location just a brewpub with no shop?

GregClow · Post by **GregClow** » Sat Sep 27, 2014 5:27 pm

MatttthewGeorge wrote:Stupid law which I'm 100% against, but wouldn't another option be to only sell out of the new location and have the Ossington location just a brewpub with no shop?

That would be an option, yes - but would piss off a lot of the locals (including me) who buy bottles there regularly. Which I get the impression is something they don't want to do.

sprague11 · Post by **sprague11** » Sat Sep 27, 2014 10:32 pm

Good ol ontario.

saints_gambit · Post by **saints_gambit** » Sun Sep 28, 2014 12:10 am

We'll get it fixed. We're working on it.

Belgian · Post by **Belgian** » Sun Sep 28, 2014 12:13 am

This offends my sense of right and wrong. Clearly Bellwoods should be permitted to triple their hl production at the new facility without having to increase production 900 per cent.

Ontario hates anyone succeeding, apparently... wonderful province for smaller breweries with talent and business sense. I have a feeling this will change over time as have other Stone Age regulations.

ErkLR · Post by **ErkLR** » Sun Sep 28, 2014 12:04 pm

Belgian wrote:Ontario hates anyone succeeding, apparently...

It's more likely that it's Molbatts who doesn't want others succeeding and that they got the regulation put in place. When the AGCO doesn't even know why the rule is there and it hampers smaller breweries from growing, I think it's fair to assume it was suggested in a "consultation" with the big 3.

saints_gambit · Post by **saints_gambit** » Sun Sep 28, 2014 12:51 pm

You can't really blame Molson and Labatt for the regulations. They were almost certainly developed in consultation, but it's a relic of a bygone age more than an intentional roadblock. During consolidation 25,000 HL made sense. Understand that all the breweries that were consolidated after 1930 were above that size.

2500 HL breweries didn't exist between 1884 and 1984. This is not exactly a new problem, but from a regulatory point of view it was an irrelevance.

The main barrier here is pointing out to the people at the AGCO and in the Ministry of Finance that it has changed and that there is benefit derived from the change. We need to change the rules so the businesses can benefit communities across the province.

JerCraigs · Post by **JerCraigs** » Sun Sep 28, 2014 8:27 pm

Anyone know the specific law/regulation? I may get off my duff and write a letter to my MP/MPP.

mistermurphy · Post by **mistermurphy** » Sun Sep 28, 2014 8:53 pm

JerCraigs wrote:Anyone know the specific law/regulation? I may get off my duff and write a letter to my MP/MPP.

Page #4: http://www.agco.on.ca/pdfs/en/guides/3167_a.pdf

Why it's there and where it comes from? Nobody knows...

icemachine · Post by **icemachine** » Sun Sep 28, 2014 8:59 pm

mistermurphy wrote:
JerCraigs wrote:Anyone know the specific law/regulation? I may get off my duff and write a letter to my MP/MPP.
Page #4: http://www.agco.on.ca/pdfs/en/guides/3167_a.pdf

Why it's there and where it comes from? Nobody knows...

I always understood the 25,000 HL rule as something that was brought in to thwart Magnotta from having multiple brewery stores

http://www.realbeer.com/library/authors ... ispute.php

Kel Varnsen · Post by **Kel Varnsen** » Mon Sep 29, 2014 7:39 am

MatttthewGeorge wrote:
Bellwoods will be faced with limited options. They can incorporate a second, separate business at the Dupont location, but they wouldn’t be able to sell beer made there at their Ossington shop, so they’d still be running out. They can open without a retail shop, but ending a brewery tour with nothing to buy isn’t a winning business strategy. Or they can close the popular Ossington location, to the frustration of the customers that have supported them since they opened in 2012.
Stupid law which I'm 100% against, but wouldn't another option be to only sell out of the new location and have the Ossington location just a brewpub with no shop?

In the article it talks about incorporating the new location as a different company. The only draw back would mean they couldn't sell beer made there at their original location. But they could sell the beer made there at the onsite store, and to bars and as a "guest beer" at their brew pub area (maybe?). Then every beer they make could just be a collaboration between Original Bellwoods and Bellwoods Junior. I am wondering if this is the best option?

saints_gambit · Post by **saints_gambit** » Mon Sep 29, 2014 9:49 am

Kel Varnsen wrote:
MatttthewGeorge wrote:
Bellwoods will be faced with limited options. They can incorporate a second, separate business at the Dupont location, but they wouldn’t be able to sell beer made there at their Ossington shop, so they’d still be running out. They can open without a retail shop, but ending a brewery tour with nothing to buy isn’t a winning business strategy. Or they can close the popular Ossington location, to the frustration of the customers that have supported them since they opened in 2012.
Stupid law which I'm 100% against, but wouldn't another option be to only sell out of the new location and have the Ossington location just a brewpub with no shop?
In the article it talks about incorporating the new location as a different company. The only draw back would mean they couldn't sell beer made there at their original location. But they could sell the beer made there at the onsite store, and to bars and as a "guest beer" at their brew pub area (maybe?). Then every beer they make could just be a collaboration between Original Bellwoods and Bellwoods Junior. I am wondering if this is the best option?

That is seemingly what E.P. Taylor after prohibition and during consolidation. While all of the companies were operated under the umbrella of Canadian Breweries Ltd, they were all individual corporations as production plants. The Dominion Brewery became something like Cosgrave (East Toronto) Ltd. while the Cosgrave Brewery was the Cosgrave Export Brewery. The laws have really not changed a great deal since 1932.

All in the new book: Lost Breweries of Toronto. Go on. Treat yourself.

GregClow · Post by **GregClow** » Mon Sep 29, 2014 1:25 pm

Kel Varnsen wrote:In the article it talks about incorporating the new location as a different company. The only draw back would mean they couldn't sell beer made there at their original location. But they could sell the beer made there at the onsite store, and to bars and as a "guest beer" at their brew pub area (maybe?). Then every beer they make could just be a collaboration between Original Bellwoods and Bellwoods Junior. I am wondering if this is the best option?

One of the main reasons for them opening the second larger brewing location is to allow them to keep up with demand for bottled product.

If the new location is a new company, they will not be able to sell bottles of beer brewed at the new location in the store at the Ossington location. So the supply issue won't be solved.

I suppose one could argue that once the new location is open with a shop, then demand for bottles at the original location may drop as people who travel there from north might start going to the new location instead. But I can't see it dropping that much, really. And there would also be the issue of one-offs that are brewed in one location only being allowed to be sold in that location.

The bottom line is that it's an out-of-date law that should be changed.

Kel Varnsen · Post by **Kel Varnsen** » Mon Sep 29, 2014 3:05 pm

GregClow wrote:
Kel Varnsen wrote:In the article it talks about incorporating the new location as a different company. The only draw back would mean they couldn't sell beer made there at their original location. But they could sell the beer made there at the onsite store, and to bars and as a "guest beer" at their brew pub area (maybe?). Then every beer they make could just be a collaboration between Original Bellwoods and Bellwoods Junior. I am wondering if this is the best option?
One of the main reasons for them opening the second larger brewing location is to allow them to keep up with demand for bottled product.

If the new location is a new company, they will not be able to sell bottles of beer brewed at the new location in the store at the Ossington location. So the supply issue won't be solved.

I suppose one could argue that once the new location is open with a shop, then demand for bottles at the original location may drop as people who travel there from north might start going to the new location instead. But I can't see it dropping that much, really. And there would also be the issue of one-offs that are brewed in one location only being allowed to be sold in that location.

The bottom line is that it's an out-of-date law that should be changed.

I agree it is not an ideal solution. But if the second brewery under a second corporation could make all the beer for all of their draft accounts, and possibly for the brew pub, then it would take some of the demand off the original brewery which could focus all of their production on making beer for the bottle shop. I agree that it is a stupid law but it seems like it is not going to change very quickly so this seems like it might be the best work around.