Sorry but if you're taking their argument at face value that decals might be the way to go here and everything would be fine if only they were there, then they've basically won.
My take is that the claim that "shoppers were made aware of the activity through decals" fails on multiple levels: whether said decals were actually there, whether they would be capable of capturing nuances of scope if they were (e.g. there's different expectations between a mall entrance, the Shoppers entrance and the LCBO entrance), whether people noticed the alleged decals if they were there, whether they could be reasonably expect to understand it (e.g. non-english speakers), whether people could infer that legalese existed if they did understand it, whether they were capable of understanding the actual terms (e.g. tech illiterates), whether it is reasonable to expect that people would consciously agree to whatever terms are laid out in the legalese, whether all people captured by face recognition necessarily were actually aware of the terms, etc. It just doesn't stick on so many levels.
You can buy hard liquor in artisanal distilleries like Spirit of York or few in Niagara region. And talking about “not beer”, wine has been available in grocery stores for a while now.
Every single one of those private liquor stores buys its stock through the BC Liquor Distribution Branch of British Columbia, so yes, the monopoly is still very much there, just hidden behind a few facades. I suspect something similar is the case in other provinces too.
Any consent that isn't explicit should have no legal value. A "decal" on a door is about as useful as a size 2 font fine print, or an audio disclaimer played back at 5 times the speed.
This implicit agreement can be used to obtain quite literally anything without the other party ever knowing.
Taking the argument at face value is probably not the right conclusion [1]. The linked court case establishes what we would call in American law Informed Consent. If you can't read disclaimer at the door until you are in camera range, is that really informed consent? And if the disclaimer does not actually list the policy in question, but refers you to a website to read it, can it be considered sufficient? A quote from the ruling is relevant here - "The more onerous the exclusion clause the more explicit the notice must be". Now, this case was related to legal liabilities related to injury in a ski resort, but it's the closet thing I've found. I suspect a judge won't take long to rule in favor of the plaintiff.