BC Cross-Regulator Records: What the Matches Show

The refreshed BC source archives contain three reviewed examples of the same recorded corporate name appearing in both liquor-waiver and employment-standards records. Two also have matching premises addresses. The third uses different White Rock addresses and supports a name-level overlap, not a same-premises claim.

These examples show why a premises may need records for several regulatory duties. They do not establish that one violation predicts another, that an inspection triggered another regulator's action, or that the regulators failed to coordinate.

Start with distinct source populations

Source	Refreshed population	What it measures
LCRB accepted-waiver archive union	393 contravention identities, including 377 liquor and 16 cannabis	Union of March, July and October-retrieved files, with overlapping rows deduplicated
ESB published violations	5,457 rows	Register archived 2 October 2026; latest decision 18 September
Fraser Health published food tickets	132 records	Eleven preserved snapshots, offence dates October 2019-July 2026, with coverage gaps
LCRB active liquor licences	10,562 licence IDs	Workbook generated 23 September 2026
Licensee-name groups with at least five licences	77 groups	Derived from September stock, not consolidated economic ownership

The earlier study used 254 waiver rows, 4,472 ESB rows, 125 Fraser records and 10,572 March licences. Those remain historical snapshots. The refreshed waiver union is not an annual total: March and July share 115 rows; July and the current file share 127. Adding files without reconciling those overlaps would inflate the population.

Three reviewed liquor and employment examples

Recorded corporate name	Liquor offence and waiver	ESB decision	Identity limit
Galaxie Craft Brewhouse Ltd.	Two offences, 12-13 October 2024; signed 19 February 2025; two $1,000 penalties	Eight $500 rows, 15 December 2025	Same recorded corporate name; different White Rock addresses
Tbaar Restaurant Ltd.	10 November 2025; signed 2 December 2025; seven-day suspension	Three $500 rows, 22 September 2025	Same corporate name and unit 2, 6400 Kingsway, Burnaby; ESB also records Myst Asian Fusion Restaurant
Rosette Hospitality Group Inc.	29 November 2025; signed 26 January 2026; $7,000 penalty	Three $500 rows, 26 April 2023	Same corporate name and 120 Hastings Street West, Vancouver

These matches were checked against full source names, addresses and dates. They are public-record identity matches, not corporate-registry verification of beneficial ownership. A historical match also does not establish the current operator of an address.

The White Rock sequence remains a historical example

The Galaxie waiver records describe an employee consuming liquor while working and a sale outside permitted hours. The ESB records eight contraventions on one decision date. The amounts sum to $6,000 across ten rows, but the underlying events occurred on different dates and the two sources list different addresses: 15165 Russell Avenue and 1122 Vidal Street.

That difference matters. The records do not identify the same workers, shift or premises. Nor do they establish a causal connection. Tbaar and Rosette also show why the order of published events must not be treated as an enforcement cascade: their ESB decision dates precede the listed liquor offences.

A name match can still be wrong

The food/employment candidate review illustrates the limits. A shared trading name may refer to different legal owners or addresses. A shared street address can persist through a change of operator. The refresh retains rejected and uncertain candidates rather than counting every name similarity as an offender.

Numbered-company digits are preserved. Punctuation and case can be normalized; different company numbers cannot. The unsupported Lighthouse link stays excluded, and a shared franchise brand is not enough to connect one franchisee's employment record to another licensee's liquor waiver.

The earlier study's 3.5-times multi-site waiver share and 27% food-ticket/licence overlap are historical estimates based on earlier files and matching choices. They are not updated prevalence or risk measures. The present review does not carry them forward as current headlines without a complete premises and ownership reconciliation.

Dates, outcomes and exposure remain different

Liquor records carry offence and waiver-signing dates. ESB rows carry decision dates and retain duplicate source rows; they are not separate employers or inspections. Fraser records are published tickets with incomplete historical coverage. Fraser Health says its list contains confirmed guilty statuses reported by ICBC; this review did not independently check individual case outcomes or payments. These populations have no common inspection or customer-exposure denominator.

The ESB report, Fraser ticket report, licence market map and waiver/ID-check report explain their individual definitions. The March waivers-by-city report retains its historical denominator.

ESB determinations may be appealed. The register does not record appeal status, and this review does not establish the appeal outcome for the examples. Monetary penalties, suspension days and ticket amounts are kept separate; no dataset-wide combined fine total or annual risk rate is inferred.

What operators can take from the examples

A licensing record, payroll record and food-safety record answer different questions. Maintaining each at the premises helps an operator respond to its corresponding obligations. Correcting one recorded problem does not itself demonstrate that other duties have been met, but these sources cannot predict which regulator will act next.

The $186,000 scenario remains a separately dated illustration with stated assumptions. Updating source populations does not recalculate that model or turn it into an observed outcome.

Sources and reproducibility

The review pins the LCRB waiver workbooks, the ESB register, the October Fraser PDF, and the September licence workbook. The research archive records file hashes, every candidate's source rows, explicit review decisions and limitations. It preserves earlier inputs separately. The refresh produces examples and a reviewable candidate list, not an exhaustive census of multi-domain offenders.