Private strip club says it’s operating within the law

Venue gives Complimentary drinks to members But doesn’t sell Alcohol

A new private strip club in Regina appears to be dancing around the province’s liquor laws — and outside the reach of the Saskatchewan Liquor and Gaming Authority (SLGA).

Regina 151 describes itself on its website as “the city’s first private members only gentleman’s club.” Owned by 52-year-old Darrin Oremba, the club has been operating since April 28.

“The people feel comfortable once they’ve been there to realize that it’s being run from someone like myself who’s not affiliated with anything having to do with crime,” Oremba told the Leaderpost Thursday. “I’m a damn white accountant is what I am.”

Saskatchewan’s liquor laws prohibit nude entertainment in venues that sell alcohol. Special occasion permits do allow stripteases in venues selling alcohol, provided there’s no exposure of female or male genitalia, or of female nipples, and the performance is part of a fundraising event to support a charitable or community initiative.

Oremba maintains he’s operating within the law, and says he’s consulted multiple lawyers. The club doesn’t sell alcohol, but members are provided with complimentary alcohol as part of their membership fee. Both Oremba and the SLGA confirmed Thursday the club doesn’t have a liquor permit.

“We are not hurting anybody in the fact that if somebody doesn’t want to come they don’t have to come,” said Oremba.

SLGA spokesman David Morris said it is illegal to sell or serve beverage alcohol without a permit — “unless you’re in your home and you’re serving alcohol to your friends or something, right.

Almost 50 former residents of the institution now known as Valley View Centre have joined a proposed class action lawsuit, suing the Saskatchewan government, for alleged physical, psychological and sexual abuse at the Moose Jaw home for people with intellectual disabilities.

The case first hit the courts in 2010. It then dragged on for years, and looked likely to fall apart after a judge refused to certify it as a class action. But late last month, the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal overturned that ruling, giving Regina lawyer Tony Merchant and his 48 claimants another chance.

“It’s unfortunate that the disadvantaged are subjected disproportionately to wrongs,” Merchant said in an interview. “Predators, even from within the institutions, tend to prey on the weakest.”

Two of the first named plaintiffs in the case alleged they were sexually assaulted and suffered from mistreatment while living at the centre in the late 1960s and early ’70s, when it was known as the Saskatchewan Training School.

In a statement of claim, one man alleged he was sexually assaulted once by an older resident, and that he witnessed other sexual assaults at the institution. He also claimed staff members physically assaulted him, and he was “always afraid” while living there.

Another claimant alleged she too was sexually assaulted, alleging her assailant was a male staff member. She swore in an affidavit that she was punished by being placed naked in a small concrete room, where she was provided only small amounts of food. She claimed she was verbally abused every day, and felt lonely and hurt at the centre.

The government responded by filing affidavits from three employees, who variously described the centre as having a pleasant and caring atmosphere and “strict policy which required employees to report cases of abuse.”

The Saskatchewan Training School once accommodated about 1,500 people with intellectual disabilities. In 1974, it was renamed the Valley View Centre to reflect a programming shift. In 2012, the government announced it would close — with the date later pushed to December 2019.

Merchant said the class action will cover anyone who allegedly suffered from mistreatment at the centre over the entire time of its existence, under both names.

“They were easy victims,” he alleged, “and obtaining compensation for them is important.”

In his most recent amended statement of claim, Merchant outlined a long list of grounds for seeking damages from the government. He argued officials failed to put reasonable hiring guidelines in place, hired “unqualified” and “incompetent” employees and created “circumstances which resulted in physical and sexual abuse.”

The claim also contends the government failed to create a system for reporting, investigating or guarding against the abuse that allegedly occurred.

“You have good institutions with well-motivated people,” he said. “But then some bad people tend to accumulate in those kinds of institutions and they take advantage of others.”

In a statement of defence, the government countered that it isn’t responsible for acts committed by patients and that some of the alleged offences would have occurred so long ago that they were “statute barred.” It also objected to the proposed class action, saying it covered so long a time period and potentially so many plaintiffs that it would be unworkable.

In 2016, a Regina’s Court of Queen’s Bench judge agreed. He ruled “it would be more fair, efficient and manageable to have individual claimants come forward to prosecute their individual cases.”

But in a decision last month, the appeal court ruled the judge did not consider the impact of his decision on “access to justice.” It also found he failed to apply the proper test to determine whether or not a class action was the best means of proceeding.

That means that the case will come back to the Court of Queen’s Bench for a new certification ruling, but Merchant is convinced the class action will go forward.

“They’re not sending it back for the same result,” he said. “We’re not certified yet, but I’d be shocked if certification were not granted.”