In a telephone call to the Chair of the Licence Appeal Tribunal of Ontario, the Attorney-General of Ontario "encourages" the Chair to revoke the liquor licence of an establishment owned by a large donor (according to public disclosure of all political donations) for the opposition party in the forthcoming election.  There is some evidence before the Tribunal of minor offences (an employee serving liquor before 9 AM on Sunday mornings on two occasions in the past 2 years) and one incident of a "bar fight" breaking out between patrons after a World Cup Soccer match.  The Chair, appointed by the current government in power, revokes the liquor licence apparently due to these minor violations.  The liquor licence holder - puzzled by the revocation given the relatively minor nature of the violations based on her 20 years experience operating with a liquor licence-  becomes aware of the phone call after the Attorney-General reveals this telephone call to a mutual friend. 

In your opinion, would this decision comply with the rule of law?  Why or why not?