Category Archives for Distillery Law

Persephone Brewing ordered to move from Agricultural Land Reserve

Craft beer darling, and Sunshine Coast favourite Persephone Brewing Company has been given two years to relocate its facilities off its current premises in British Columbia’s Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR). On December 19th, 2016 the Agricultural Land Commission (South Coast Panel) released the reasons of its decision not to permit Persephone to continue to operate at its 11 acre property located at 1053 Stewart Road in Gibsons, BC. The reasons can be found here.

Although branded as a “farm-based brewery” the Commission found that Persephone’s operations fail to meet the requirements of a “farm use” and was therefore operating in contravention of the Agriculture Land Commission Act and Regulation.

The decision of the Commission pits two consumer groups whose interests are traditionally aligned: craft beer enthusiasts and local produce supporters, against the other creating an unusual and somewhat uncomfortable dynamic.

Persephone Brewing’s operations include a tasting room, outdoor seating area, and a food truck. The property also functions as a farm: hops are grown on the property, as well as some produce. Importantly, and also the source of controversy, the property is located within the ALR.

The ALR was originally set up to preserve British Columbia’s limited agricultural land resource, and operates as a land-use zone in which agriculture is recognized as the primary use.  The ALR comprises just 5% of BC’s total land base and is the area with the greatest agricultural capacity. As a finite and valuable resource, the province has decided to protect this land from gradual erosion by non-farming uses.

Though farming and ranching activities on the ALR are encouraged, some non-agricultural uses are permitted if they are considered compatible with agriculture and have low impacts on the land base, examples include pet kennelling or breeding and equestrian facilities. Recently the operation of a brewery, distillery or meadery was designated as a farm use in the ALR provided “at least 50% of the farm product used to make the beer, spirits or mead produced each year is grown on the farm on which that brewery, distillery or meadery is located.” 

Unlike wineries and cideries, breweries cannot purchase product under contract from another grower to meet the 50% threshold. However, there is no requirement for a brewery to grow product on the parcel of land on which the brewery or distillery is located. To meet the 50% threshold a farm-based brewery can be comprised of several parcels of land owned or operated by the farm business where on one parcel the brewery operates and on another the grains are grown.

The 50% threshold is measured by the quantity of farm product processed calculated on an annual basis. According to the ALR policy, for beer the farm product will be grain and not hops due to the small quantities of hops involved in the beer making process. In the case of beer water is not considered a farm product, and the in case of distilled products neutral grain spirit (imported alcohol) is not a farm product. The 50% threshold will be based on the farm product used to make the alcohol (grains, corn, potatoes, sugar beets, etc.) and not the botanicals or other flavouring used in the final product due to their smaller proportions.

In its reasons the Commission confirmed Persephone has been operating on the property since 2013, which pre-dates the inclusion of breweries as a permitted farm use in the ALR. Prior to the Regulation amendment in 2015 the Commission had consistently told land owners and brewers that breweries were not permitted on the ALR.

Persephone submitted to the Commission that it currently grows hops on the property which are used in the brewing process, but conceded that all the barley used by the brewery is sourced from other locations not associated with the farm.  On that basis the Commission found that Persephone Brewing has historically been, and is currently, operating in contravention of the Agriculture Land Commission Act and Regulation and refused Persephone’s request to continue operating on the ALR. To provide Persephone with a reasonable amount of time to relocate its operations the Commission will defer enforcement of the decision for two years.

The Commission’s decision raises interesting questions: is the current 50% threshold too high? Should the Regulation be amended to permit farm-based breweries to contract for barley from elsewhere in BC? Are breweries a good gateway to get the public interested and engaged in farming? Or are breweries best kept off fertile lands reserved for agriculture?

Apparently Persephone has no intention of leaving the property and intends to seek an appeal of the decision. Alcohol & Advocacy will be monitoring the situation closely.

*Alcohol & Advocacy publishes articles for information purposes only. They are not a substitute for legal advice, and persons requiring such advice should consult legal counsel

Toronto Distillery Company unsuccessful at Court of Appeal

It’s fitting that after a year of significant liquor law announcements, reforms, and court cases coming from across the country, the Ontario Court of Appeal would release a liquor law decision just before the start of the New Year. While the result was unfortunate for the Toronto Distillery Company, and affirms a common practice used by liquor control boards to extract tax revenue from small producers, it does provide food for thought for liquor lawyers from coast-to-coast.

On December 15, 2016 Charles Benoit, a lawyer by training and one of the owners of the appellant Toronto Distillery Company (the “Distillery) appeared before the Court of Appeal for Ontario to argue that the April 1, 2016 decision of Ontario’s Superior Court of Justice was wrongly decided. That decision can be found here, and Alcohol & Advocacy summarized it here.

Put simply, the Distillery took issue with its contractual relationship with the Liquor Control Board of Ontario (the “LCBO”). In order to be a licensed manufacturer of alcohol in Ontario the Distillery was required to enter into a contract with the LCBO whereby all of the spirits the Distillery manufactured and wished to sell at its on-site retail store would first be sold to the LCBO (though the spirits would not physically leave the premises), and all sales the Distillery made thereafter of its own products would be made as “agent” for the LCBO. The LCBO has sole discretion over the mark-up the Distillery charges on its products, which it is then required to remit back to the LCBO.

The Distillery’s position before the application judge was that this mandatory mark-up regime was in pith and substance a tax and the LCBO is not authorized to levy taxes. On that basis the Distillery refused to pay any of what it considered to be unconstitutional remittances (read taxes) required by the LCBO contract. As at July, 2015 the unpaid remittances were in excess of $14,000. The Distillery subsequently acknowledged that it did not have sufficient funds to pay the overdue remittances as that money had been used to pay other business expenses.

Before the Court of Appeal the Distillery argued passionately that the application judge incorrectly interpreted the statutory framework and relevant case law; that properly considered the existing mandatory mark-up regime is unconstitutional and a “money grab” on the part of the province of Ontario. The Distillery’s argument can be found here in its appeal factum.

On December 20, 2016, only five days after hearing oral argument, the Court of Appeal released its decision dismissing the appeal, and awarding each of the three respondents (the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario, the Liquor Control Board of Ontario, and Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario) a costs award of $5,000. Between the two levels of court the Distillery is liable for $37,500 in costs awards. Not an insignificant amount of money for a small business.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the application judge’s analysis of Ontario’s liquor law regime – that the mandatory mark-up on the Distillery’s products was a legitimate “proprietary charge” and not a tax. The Court of Appeal also agreed with the application judge’s alternative conclusion that that mark-up was not a tax because the Distillery agreed to it by way of contract.

The court observed that it is a well-established principle that obligations under a contract arise from the voluntary agreement of the parties, while the obligation to pay a tax does not. Under the contract, the LCBO owns the spirits in the Distillery’s on-site store. As owner of the goods, the LCBO has the right to determine the prices for which they are sold, including the mark-up. It follows that the mark-up is not an exercise of the government’s public authority but of its private law rights.

Lastly the appeal justices agreed with the application judge’s observation that the Distillery entered into a contract with the LCBO for a commercial advantage and it was “clear that the applicant was not compelled to sell its products through its own store. Like others, it could sell its spirits through stores operated by the LCBO or, alternatively, to markets outside Canada.”

While this decision is no doubt a significant blow to the Distillery, and the growing lobby of craft brewers and distillers seeking meaningful legislative reforms to allow their industry to flourish, there does appear to be change on the horizon. Last month the  government of Ontario proposed a new measure in the upcoming budget bill that may put more money in distillers’ pockets by replacing the “old LCBO mark-up fee.” Unfortunately, as the CBC reports, the initial reaction from the stakeholders to the new tax is mixed at best.

Happy New Year from Alcohol & Advocacy!

*Alcohol & Advocacy publishes articles for information purposes only. They are not a substitute for legal advice, and persons requiring such advice should consult legal counsel.

Toronto Distillery Co. v. The Liquor Control Board of Ontario

In January of this year the Toronto Distillery Company (the “Distillery”) brought an application in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice for a declaration that the levy imposed by the Liquor Control Board of Ontario (the “LCBO”) on the sale of its products at its on-site retail store is unconstitutional. The Distillery’s position is that the “levy” the LCBO charges on all of its products is in substance a “tax” and only the Parliament of Canada or the Legislature of Ontario has the authority to impose taxes.

The Court’s reasons for judgement can be found here.

The Facts

The Distillery, founded in 2012, is a small craft distillery located in the Junction neighbourhood of Toronto. The Distillery operates “within organic channels” and was the first new distillery to be licensed in Toronto since 1933.

Put simply, the Distillery takes issue with its relationship with the LCBO. In order to obtain a manufacturer’s and retail store licence from the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario (the “AGCO”) it was required to enter into a contract with the LCBO. The contract between the Distillery and the LCBO required that all of the spirits the Distillery manufactured would first be sold to the LCBO (though the spirits being sold on site would not physically leave the premises), and all sales the Distillery made of its own products at its on-site retail store must be made as agent for the LCBO – who had sole discretion over the mark-up that the Distillery had to remit back to it. Although the Distillery was entitled to receive a 13% commission for its role as acting as the LCBO’s agent – the mark-up on the product was fixed by the LCBO at 139.7%.

When the Distillery’s products are sold through LCBO stores that 139.7% mark-up pays for warehousing costs, marketing efforts and staffing costs incurred by the LCBO.  When the same product is sold directly by its manufacturer the LCBO takes the same cut – but does none of the work. Taking the position that this statutorily-imposed mark-up was not only unfair, but also unconstitutional, the Distillery stopped remitting the mandated mark-up on its products to the LCBO in 2014. As you can imagine it was not long before the LCBO insisted on their cut.

The AGCO and the LCBO were united before the Court in their position: the mark-up imposed by the LCBO on the Distillery’s products is not a “tax” but a proprietary charge on liquor owned by the LCBO.

The Constitutional and Statutory Framework

Canada’s constitution mandates that only Parliament and the provincial legislatures have the ability to impose taxes.

As a general rule, the sale and manufacture of liquor in Ontario is prohibited – subject to limited exceptions contained in Ontario’s Liquor Licence Act and Liquor Control Act.  At the federal level the importation and transportation of liquor is prohibited unless it is owned by the government of Canada or a provincial government agency, or other exemptions contained in the Importation of Intoxicating Liquors Act apply.

Collectively these three statutes provide the LCBO with a monopoly over the sale, transportation, delivery and storage of liquor in Ontario.

To manufacture or retail liquor in the province of Ontario, as the Distillery decided to do in 2012, a licence must be obtained from the provincial government that is subject to stringent conditions.

Is the LCBO Mark-Up a Tax or Proprietary Charge?

The central question before the Court was whether the LCBO mandated mark-up on the Distillery’s products at its on-site retail store is a “tax”, as argued by the Distillery (and potentially improper and unenforceable), or a “proprietary charge”, as claimed by the LCBO (and thus proper and enforceable).

In concluding that the mark-up was not a tax, but rather a proprietary charge, the Court found that proprietary charges are those levied by provinces in the exercise of proprietary rights over its public property. A province may levy fees, rents or royalties as the price for the private exploitation of provincially owned natural resources as well as other goods and services the province supplies in a commercial way such as information booklets, electricity, rail travel – and liquor.

The Contractual Relationship

One of the key components of the Distillery’s agreement with the province of Ontario is that once its spirits are produced they are sold immediately to the LCBO. The fact that the product remains on the Distillery’s premise after distillation does not change the fact that the spirits have become the property of the LCBO. Once the spirits are the LCBO’s property, the mark-up is not a true tax but rather a fee for a product supplied by the province in a commercial manner.

The Distillery asserted that absent the LCBO contract the spirits are solely the property of the Distillery and the LCBO has no proprietary right over them. While that is true, the Court held that the existence of the contract cannot be “absented” from the equation – the Distillery is only permitted to operate because of its contractual relationship with the LCBO.

The Court concluded by observing that the Distillery voluntarily entered into a commercial relationship with the LCBO with full knowledge of the mark-up regime.  At this point in the narrative it’s worth mentioning that the founders of the Distillery, Messrs. Benoir and Razaqpur are both lawyers.


2016 has already been a significant year for liquor law in Canada, with both Gerard Comeau and the Toronto Distillery Company challenging the constitutionality of their respective province’s liquor licensing and control regimes.

Although the Distillery was not successful at the trial court level, the matter is far from over. The Distillery has appealed the Court’s decision and oral arguments before the Ontario Court of Appeal will be heard on December 15, 2016. Alcohol & Advocacy will be monitoring the situation closely.

*Alcohol & Advocacy publishes articles for information purposes only. They are not a substitute for legal advice, and persons requiring such advice should consult legal counsel.

Alcohol & Advocacy

Canada’s Liquor Labelling Requirements Part 2

A beverage with alcohol by volume greater than 1.1% is considered an alcoholic beverage under the Food and Drug Regulations. The Regulations describe alcoholic beverages by their “common name” – which is another way of saying the category of liquor the beverage falls into (e.g. beer, wine, whisky).

The Regulations set out a “standard of identity or composition” for most alcoholic beverages. In more simple terms that means the government has defined the fundamental criteria: ingredients, method of production and characteristics, for the most common types of alcoholic beverages.

If an alcoholic beverage meets one of these standards then that “common name” must be used to describe the beverage if it has been imported, or is intended for interprovincial trade (most liquor in Canada falls into one of those two categories). If your brewery makes an alcoholic beverage that looks and tastes like beer – then it only makes sense that it should be labelled “beer”. The Regulations ensure that if a consumer picks up a can marked “beer” they have a pretty good idea of what is inside.

But what if you operate a distillery, and you make a unique product that is not easily classified? The Regulations can’t possibly contain definitions and classifications for every possible alcoholic beverage imaginable. In these instances alcoholic beverages that do not meet a prescribed standard must be labelled with the name by which the liquor is generally known, or “a name that describes the true nature of the product.”

Generic names such as “beverage”, “drink”, “cooler”, “spirit” or “liquor”, as appropriate, are accepted common names of alcoholic beverages that do not have a prescribed standard composition.

So what does all of this mean? For consumers the Regulations serve a valid purpose: when you walk into a liquor store and buy a bottle labelled “Irish Whisky” you expect that the whisky you are about to enjoy was distilled in Ireland. The Regulations are in place to ensure that is the case. Not only do the Regulations serve this informative purpose (some bottles are so decorative and heavily branded it can be tough to know what liquor is actually inside) but they also prevent less scrupulous manufacturers and distributors from holding out spirits as say “Bourbon Whisky” when the whisky inside is nothing of the sort.

Continue reading

Canada’s Liquor Labelling Requirements Part 1

This past week it came to light that people were dying in a slum of Mumbai, India, from drinking “tainted” moonshine. Over 150 people are suspected of having consumed the illicit methanol-laced liquor, and at the time of writing 94 people have died. Methanol, or methyl alcohol, is a highly toxic form of alcohol (sometimes used as anti-freeze or fuel), that is often added to bootlegged liquor as an easy way to increase the alcohol content. Ethanol, or ethyl alcohol, is the name of beverage-grade alcohol.

The incident in Mumbai brings into focus the significance of many of the rules and regulations that surround the import, manufacture and service of liquor in Canada. While the licensing and taxation of liquor in Canada leaves much to be desired – it is easy to take for granted the existing infrastructure and regulations that ensure the beer, wine, and spirits we consume are safe and properly labelled.

The laws in British Columbia that prohibit barrel-aged cocktails,  and limit bartenders’ ability to mix drinks in advance of being ordered or out of the customer’s sight, are all examples of requirements that ensure patrons are aware of the liquor they are about to consume, which in turn keeps illicit liquor out of the distribution chain.

In Canada every level of government plays a role in food safety, with the federal Food and Drugs Act forming the foundation of Canada’s food safety system. Yes, under the Food and Drugs Act “alcohol” and “alcoholic beverages” are considered “food.” Health Canada is responsible for establishing standards for the safety and nutritional quality of all foods (liquor) sold in Canada. Health Canada’s authority is provided in the Food and Drugs Act and it pursues its regulatory mandate under the Food and Drug RegulationsThe ongoing success of the Canadian food safety system depends not only on the close working relationships between various federal and provincial ministries, but also the active participation of industry groups.

The conditions established in the Food and Drug Regulations regarding safety, quality and composition apply to breweries, wineries and distilleries just as they would to manufacturers of other food and beverage. The idea is that this uniform regulatory standard allows Canadians to be confident in the safety of the products they purchase and consume regardless of where they come from.

The standards for food health and safety created by the Food and Drug Regulations, as well non-health related safety regulations such as the packaging, labelling and advertising of food is enforced by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA). The CFIA works with the BC Liquor Control and Licensing Branch and the other provincial liquor boards to ensure that the beer, wine and spirits produced in the province adhere to the requirements of the Food and Drugs Act.

The requirements and restrictions the Food and Drug Act and the Regulations place on liquor manufacturers are sweeping: composition, container size, alcohol content and product description are all regulated. Additionally the the Consumer Packing and Labelling Act, also enforced by the CFIA, contains further liquor labelling requirements as well as prohibitions against “false and misleading information”  regarding a product’s origin, quality, performance, net weight or quantity. These requirements also apply to imported alcoholic beverages.

Despite the forgoing, in December 2007 when nutrition labelling became mandatory across Canada for most pre-packaged food products, alcoholic beverages were exempted.

If your business needs assistance navigating Canada and British Columbia’s Byzantine maze of health and labelling regulations you should contact counsel familiar with this area of the law.

*Alcohol & Advocacy publishes articles for information purposes only. They are not a substitute for legal advice, and persons requiring such advice should consult legal counsel.

BC’s Sampling & Tasting Policy Consultation – A Call for Change

This past Easter long weekend I had the pleasure of visiting a handful of wineries in Naramata, speaking to their owners, and or course sampling their products. The Naramata Bench offers a truly world class wine tasting and touring experience complete with modern facilities and stunning views of Lake Okanagan.  It was fitting that on April 1, 2015 (the day before I left for wine country)  the Liquor Control and Licensing Branch published its Sampling & Tasting Policy Consultation bulletin. Currently in British Columbia there is no maximum volume or quantity of free samples a winery, brewery or distillery is permitted to offer on its manufacturing site. I worry that may change.

The Sampling & Tasting Policy Consultation was drafted in response to Recommendation 59 contained in the Final Report which reads “any establishment that sells liquor should be able to provide samples in a socially responsible manner”. That makes sense. Unfortunately under the Terms and Conditions of the different categories of liquor licence in British Columbia the sample size restrictions vary between licence class. For example a food primary licensee (think restaurant) can provide larger wine samples to customers than a wine store can. That would probably come as surprise to most British Columbians.

As it stands British Columbia has the most restrictive product sampling restrictions in the country. The Liquor Control and Licensing Branch restricts not only the size of any individual product sample but also the maximum total volume of samples a consumer can be offered. This requires an employee or liquor agent conducting a product tasting to “measure out fractional liquor quantities to meet the required volumes” when offering for sample a variety of different liquors. It is not like this in other provinces.

This strict quantitative approach to product sampling stands in stark contrast to the relaxed and pro-business approach taken by the governments of Ontario and Nova Scotia for example, where consumer tastings are limited to a “small part or quantity intended to show what the whole is like” (Ontario) or “1/2 the regular serving size or less” (Nova Scotia). These latter more generous guidelines adopted in other provinces demonstrate that liquor samples can be offered safely and professionally without resorting to the use of a graduated cylinder.

In drafting the Sampling & Tasting Policy Consultation the British Columbia government has expressly recognized that product tastings are a legitimate form of liquor promotion, but that reform needs to be balanced with principles of public safety and fair competition. The Liquor Control and Licensing Branch must ensure that changes to how liquor samples are provided to the public will continue to ensure that product tastings are not used inappropriately as “inducements” to create unfair competition, and that the risks of serving minors, drinking and driving and related health concerns are mitigated.

Respectfully, Alcohol & Advocacy is of the view that the government should take this opportunity to revisit how consumer tastings are regulated in British Columbia to ensure that the new Terms and Conditions imposed on licensees are not detrimental to the development of wine, beer and spirit production as a key aspect of the tourism and agricultural industry in British Columbia.

Continue reading

Battle of the Glen Part 3 of 3: You can take the “Glen” out of Scotland, but you can’t take the Glen out of “Glen Breton”

The Federal Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and directed that the Registrar of Trade-marks allow Glenora’s application to register Glen Breton. Although the Association sought leave to further appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, leave was denied, thus bringing the Battle of the Glen to a close in Glenora’s favour.

Unfortunately for whisky lovers the Court of Appeal’s reasoning was not based on the characteristics of Glen Breton, the origin of the word “glen”, or what Scotch drinkers look for when perusing the shelves of liquor stores. Instead the Court of Appeal overturned Justice Harrington on the basis that he made an error of law in his trade-mark analysis. The Court of Appeal held that Justice Harrington was wrong when he decided that the word “glen”, having only previously been used as part of various registered trade-marks, was in fact a “mark” within the meaning of section 10 of the Act.

What is a “mark”? A “mark” is word or symbol used by a person for the purpose of distinguishing his or her wares or services from those wares or services made or sold by competitors.

Continue reading

The Battle of the Glen Part 2 of 3: Confusion in the Marketplace

When Glenora applied to Register “Glen Breton” as a trade-mark for use in association with its whisky, the Association opposed the registration. Specifically the Association challenged Glenora’s ability to use a mark prefixed with the word “glen” for its whisky. It claimed that the use of “glen”-prefixed marks in association with several well-known single malt Scotches, including Glenlivet, Glenmorangie and Glenfiddich, has resulted in an association in consumers’ minds between the word “glen” and whiskies distilled in Scotland.

If “glen” in ordinary and commercial use was a mark that had become shorthand for “whisky made in Scotland” than Glenora would be unable to register Glen Breton as a trademark under the Trade-mark Act.

The Trade-marks Opposition Board rejected the Association’s objection on the basis that although there was evidence of “glen”-prefixed marks being used by Scotch whisky distillers, the Board found that this use was not widespread enough to have instructed Canadian consumers to associate the word “glen” with Scotch whiskies. The Association appealed.

By 2008 when the appeal of the Trade-marks Opposition Board came before the Federal Court, along with it came volumes of new evidence on the history of Scotch drinking in Canada and details of single malt Scotches sold with “glen” in their name. Apparently in the year 2000 there were some 22 different whiskies sold in Canada that contained the word “glen”. After reviewing the new evidence, Justice Harrington was of the opinion that there was extensive reputation associated with “glen”-prefixed Scotch whisky brands. He found that there was actual confusion in the marketplace, and that some consumers were not aware that Glenora’s product was not a Scotch distilled in Scotland.

Justice Harrington did not accept the argument made by Glenora that any confusion by consumers was due to the fact that Glen Breton has many of the characteristics of Scotch (flavour, aroma, colour etc.) and found instead that the confusion was due to the use of the “glen”-prefixed mark. Justice Harrington concluded that “Glen Breton” was not a registerable trade-mark as the word “glen” had by ordinary commercial use become recognized in Canada as designating Scotch whisky. He therefore allowed the appeal and directed the Registrar of Trade-marks to refuse Glenora’s application to register Glen Breton.

Glenora appealed that decision.

The Battle of the Glen Part 1 of 3: What’s in a name?

When is Scotch whisky not Scotch whisky?

The answer of course is when it is not distilled and matured in Scotland. While you might expect that question and answer to be taken from the pages of a whisky guide, or a Scotch blog, those words were in fact lifted from the first paragraph of the 2008 Federal Court decision in Scotch Whisky Association v. Glenora Distillers International Ltd.

The branding and marketing of alcohol has always been big business, but unlike previous eras “micro” distilleries, breweries and wineries are now competing nationally and internationally for consumers’ dollars and loyalty. While healthy competition is good for everyone, fledgling business owners must be careful about encroaching on the intellectual property rights of their competitors. Those colourful beer, wine and whisky bottle labels that we all enjoy are vested with copyright and trade-mark protections that must be respected.

What follows is an example of a small Canadian distiller attempting to enter the lucrative market of single malt whiskies, and the Scotch Whisky Association’s attempt to stop them by way of intellectual property rights litigation. Though most observers would probably agree that the merits of whisky are better off debated over a few drams at a tasting, or in industry publications, occasionally the courts are called on to act.

Glenora Distillers International Ltd. (“Glenora”) is a distiller located in Cape Breton, Nova Scotia. Construction of the distillery began in 1988 on a 900 acre site in Glenville, Inverness County. The distillery consists of malt storage (like many distillers Glenora contracts the malting process to an outside source), grist mill, mash house, still house, warehouses, bottling plant, as well as tourism facilities. The structures were constructed in traditional post and beam style just like the famous distilleries found in Scotland. The two copper pot stills were made by Forsyth & Sons of Speyside Scotland.

Continue reading