ALCOHOL AND GAMING COMMISSION OF ONTARIO
IN THE MATTER OF The: Gaming Control Act, 1992, as amended
B E T W E E N:
Registrar, Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario
Registrar
-and-
Min Yao He and Xiao Yan He operating as Lambton Daily Mart
Registrant
DECISION
Panel: Jacqueline Castel, Board Member
Bruce S. Miller, Board Member
Decision Date: January 29, 2010
Hearing Location: Toronto, Ontario
Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario
90 Sheppard Avenue East, Suite 300
Toronto, Ontario M2N 0A4
Phone: (416) 326-0366 Fax: (416) 326-5566
Toll Free In Ontario: 1-800-522-2876
Website: www.agco.on.ca
Appearances
Registrar, Alcohol and Gaming Commission ) Sujin Chan, Representative
Min Yao He and Xiao Yan He, Registrant ) John Lee, Representative
Allegations
- A hearing into an Order of Immediate Suspension (“OIS”) dated December 4, 2009, file number 165369, to suspend the registration of MIN YAO HE and XIAO YAN HE (the “Registrant”), operating as LAMBTON DAILY MART (the “establishment”), 102 Lambton Avenue, Toronto, Ontario, M6N 2S9, registration number 00153973, as a gaming supplier, on the basis that it is necessary in the public interest under subsection 14(1) of the Gaming Control Act, 1992 (“GCA”), was held on January 12, 2010 in Toronto.
Decision
- After considering all the evidence and submissions, the Board UPHOLDS the Registrar’s OIS until such time as a hearing is held, on the Notice of Proposed Order (“NOPO”) to revoke the registrant’s supplier registration, and a Panel of the Board makes a decision on same. Reasons follow.
Preliminary Matters
Mr. Lu Feng was sworn in as interpreter for Mr. Min Yao He.
Ms Chan provided the Board with a copy of a Notice of Proposed Order (“NOPO”) to revoke the Registration of the Registrant, dated January 8, 2010. She advised that the facts in the NOPO are identical to those in the OIS. Ms Chan requested that the Board consider both the OIS and the NOPO to revoke the registration at this hearing. Ms Chan also mentioned that it would not be cost-effective to hold two hearings on the same set of facts.
Mr. Lee objected to the Board considering the NOPO to revoke the registration at the hearing of January 12, 2010. He advised that while the NOPO may be dated January 8, 2010, he only received a copy of it on January 12, 2010 and has not had an opportunity to review it or discuss it with his client. Given that the implications of a revocation on his client are far greater than a suspension, he requires more time to prepare for a revocation hearing. He submitted that procedural and natural justice dictate that he be given adequate time to prepare for such a hearing. Mr. Lee indicated that he wishes to go ahead with the hearing into the OIS today.
The Board decided to proceed with the hearing on the OIS only. The Board does not have jurisdiction to order a hearing on a NOPO when the Registrant has not requested a hearing. While the Board notes that it is unfortunate to have to convene two hearings on the same set of facts, the Registrar should have served the NOPO on the Registrant on a timelier basis. It is unfair and unacceptable to serve an NOPO to revoke a registration the day before the proposed hearing and to expect the Registrant to be prepared to proceed at a hearing the following day.
Ms Chan noted a correction to paragraph 4 of the OIS. Specifically, in line 4, “Mr.” should be “Ms”, and in line 5, “Ms” should be “Mr.” Mr. Lee agreed with the corrections.
Ms Chan filed the Registrar’s Book of Documents. Mr. Lee advised that the Book of Documents was only disclosed to him yesterday, although he admitted that his client received disclosure of same earlier and part of the reason for the delay was caused by Mr. Lee being away on vacation until January 8, 2010. Mr. Lee advised that as his client wishes to proceed with the hearing today, he would not be objecting to the introduction of the Book of Documents as an exhibit. Accordingly, the Board entered the Registrar’s Book of Documents as Exhibit 1.
Mr. Lee filed a certified copy of two Toronto Police Service Informations pertaining to the status of charges against Min Yao He and Xiao Yan He, which the Board entered as Exhibit 2.
Mr. Miller, the Panel Chair, asked that witnesses be excused and then declared that in his prior career, he had professional dealings with one of the Registrar’s witnesses, Mr. Brian Adkin. He indicated that he has had no personal or social dealings with Mr. Adkin. Neither the Registrar nor Registrant’s counsel had any objection to Mr. Miller chairing the Panel.
The Board ordered that witnesses be excluded on consent.
Registrar’s Evidence
Detective Constable (“D.C.”) Jason Rennie, who has been employed with the Toronto Police Services for over four years, attended the establishment on October 2, 2009 in plain clothes with a City of Toronto Tobacco Enforcement Officer and an underage “secret shopper”. The secret shopper entered the establishment and purchased a pack of cigarettes. She advised that the clerk did not ask her for identification before selling her the cigarettes. D.C. Rennie and the Tobacco Enforcement officer then entered the establishment to inform them of the infraction under the Smoke Free Ontario Act.
D.C. Rennie asked the male behind the counter for his identification. The male provided an Ontario driver’s licence showing that his name was Min Yao He. While standing at the counter, he observed a box of DVDs on the counter which he believed to be pirated.
D.C. Rennie called the dispatcher to perform a CPIC check on the male. The dispatcher told him the male had conditions not to possess pirated DVDs.
D.C. Rennie then checked behind the counter and in the back room. He observed additional open boxes of DVDs behind the counter and more DVDs in the back room.
D.C. Rennie arrested the male for failure to comply with conditions and seized 457 DVDs.
He knew the DVDs were pirated because some of them were movies that were still in the theatres and not yet released to DVDs.
At the police station, Mr. He was charged under the Criminal Code with fraud under $5,000 and possession of property under $5,000 obtained by crime.
On cross-examination, D.C. Rennie stated that the DVDs were clearly visible on the counter. The DVDs were standing upright in a box on the counter.
He does not recall the number of rows of DVDs.
He did not notice any pornography DVDs.
He does not have a list of the names of the DVDs.
In response to a question from the Board, D.C. Rennie stated that he is not sure whether “the failure to comply” applied to probation or release conditions.
Christian Boutilier is a Gaming Registration Officer employed by the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario (“AGCO”). He is responsible for reviewing applications for registration of suppliers and gaming assistants and for doing background checks.
Referring to Tab 5 of the Book of Documents, Mr. Boutilier stated he received a renewal application for the Registrant in July 2009. After performing a background check on the Registrant, he learned that Mr. He had charges against him. Mr. Boutilier referred the file to the AGCO’s Investigation Branch for further investigation. He was subsequently informed that Mr. He was charged with possessing 400 plus pirated DVDs.
Mr. Boutilier notified his manager of the charges. His manager decided to renew the registration subject to the Registrant consenting to terms and conditions of registration.
Referring to Tab 4 of the Book of Documents, Mr. Boutilier read the conditions:
“1 a) Min Yao He & Xiao Yao He, o/a Lambton Daily Mart has read and understands their responsibilities under the Gaming Control Act, 1992, Regulations and Terms and Conditions of Lottery Licences, including the rules of play, which are enclosed for their information.
2 a) Min Yao He & Xiao Yao He, o/a Lambton Daily Mart shall advise the Deputy Registrar in writing within ten (10) days of any and all charges, convictions and findings of guilt, including where an absolute or conditional discharge is granted or other disposition is made, of any charge under any legislation and in any jurisdiction, including but not limited to the Criminal Code of Canada and the Ontario Highway Traffic Act.
Mr. Boutilier sent the Registrant the terms and conditions (Tab 4) and had two or three conversations with Mr. He before he received the signed terms and conditions. Mr. He never indicated he did not understand the terms and conditions.
The terms and conditions were signed on September 24, 2009 and the renewal application was approved on October 1, 2009.
Mr. Boutilier was never notified by the Registrant of any charges, in accordance with paragraph 2 a) of the terms and conditions.
On cross-examination, referring to question #2 of the renewal application (Tab 5, Book of Documents), Mr. Boutilier stated that “last year” would apply to the last 12 months and would, therefore, cover the period July 2008 to July 2009.
Referring to Tab 4 of the Book of Documents, Mr. Boutilier stated that he did not do anything to confirm that the Registrant reviewed the terms with a lawyer.
Mr. Boutilier acknowledged that the terms and conditions should have been witnessed at the date and time they were signed. The Registrant signed the terms and conditions on September 24, 2009 and the witness signed them on September 30, 2009. He never inquired why they were signed and “witnessed” on different dates.
On re-examination, Mr. Boutilier stated he is not required to confirm that the Registrant obtained legal advice before signing the terms and conditions.
Mr. James Hutchinson has been an investigator with the AGCO for about two years. He is responsible for conducting due diligence investigations on suppliers. He received a request from Mr. Boutilier to conduct a due diligence investigation on the Registrant and, in particular, to find out the background around recent criminal charges.
Referring to his investigation report (Tab 6, Book of Documents), Mr. Hutchinson said Min Yao He and Xiao He own the business of Lambton Daily Mart in partnership. This is their first store and they have been operational since July 31, 2008.
In response to a Crime Stoppers complaint, on June 19, 2009, officers from the 12 Division Community Response Unit entered the store and observed three boxes of DVDs on the counter. A female customer purchased a DVD while Mr. He was operating the cash register. Ms He entered the store and also began working behind the counter.
A sign on one box indicated a price for the DVDs of $4.00 each, $10 for three, or $20 for eight. Officers examined the DVDs and determined that all of the titles were copyright with distribution of these movies belonging exclusively to the companies that produced the films.
On June 22, 2009 Mr. He was arrested and subsequently released on an undertaking to attend court on August 4, 2009. Ms He was arrested the following day and also released on an undertaking to attend court on August 4, 2009. 439 DVDs were seized with 272 individual titles, valued at $8,780.
Mr. Hutchinson interviewed Mr. He on July 20, 2009 at the store. Ms He was present at the store during the interview but not interviewed. Mr. He indicated that he had completed and signed the renewal application for the partnership and there were no changes. When asked why he did not disclose the criminal charges on the form, Mr. He said he thought disclosure was only required if the “charges were finished”. He also said his lawyer told him he did not have to worry about being convicted.
Mr. He also said he had about 100 DVDs on the counter, indicating the location where the trays of OLG tickets were kept. He did not know the name of the DVD supplier, but he would come to replenish them and count the number sold. Mr. He said that he paid $2.50 for each DVD and sold them for $5.00 each. He also said that the police told him the DVDs were illegal.
On cross-examination, Mr. Hutchinson stated that Mr. He had difficulty understanding “charged”, “convicted” and “found guilty”. He thought he did not have to disclose the charges because they were still working their way through the court system.
Mr. Hutchinson also stated that Mr. He was very cooperative at the meeting. He answered all of his questions and also provided him with the business card of his lawyer.
On re-examination, Mr. Hutchinson stated he explained to Mr. He the difference between “charges” and “convictions”.
Mr. Gerald Brian Adkin has been an investigator with the AGCO Enforcement and Investigation Branch for three years, and before that he was an OPP officer for 33 years.
Referring to his Investigation Report at Tab 2 of the Book of Documents, he stated that he was assigned to conduct an investigation on the Registrant on behalf of the AGCO. His investigation revealed that on June 19, 2009 Detective Constable David Michaud seized 439 counterfeit DVDs from the establishment. Mr. He (on June 22, 2009) and Ms He (on June 23, 2009) were charged with possession of property under $5,000 obtained by crime and fraud under $5,000, contrary to sections 355(b) and 380(1)(b) of the Criminal Code, respectively.
On September 30, 2009 Mr. He pled guilty to the charge of possession of property under $5,000 obtained by crime. He received a conditional discharge and 12 months probation. The fraud charge was withdrawn. Charges against Ms He were withdrawn.
On October 2, 2009, D.C. Rennie seized 457 counterfeit DVDs inside the establishment from the possession of the Registrant. On October 2, 2009, Mr. He was again charged with possession of property under $5,000 obtained by crime and fraud under $5,000, contrary to sections 355(b) and 380(1)(b) of the Criminal Code, respectively.
Mr. Adkin interviewed Mr. He on October 29, 2009. Mr. He told him that two police officers came into his store to check for illegal tobacco on October 2, 2009. They found and seized 300 DVDs. Mr. He also said there were 100 DVDs on the counter and 200 in the basement. According to Mr. He, the DVDs are brought to him by someone he doesn’t know. After he was arrested on June 23, 2009, he told the DVD delivery person to quit bringing DVDs to his store. This delivery person said he was unable to stop bringing them, but said he would tell the money collector that Mr. He did not want any more DVDs. Two to three weeks later, the money collector came to his store and said that the delivery person would pick up the DVDs on the next round. The police seized the DVDs two days after he spoke to the money collector.
Mr. He also told Mr. Adkin that he had not sold any DVDs since his first arrest. He could not throw the DVDs away, as he would be forced to pay for them.
Mr. Adkin interviewed Mr. He again on October 30, 2009. Mr. He said he recalled signing the terms and conditions of registration (Tab 5). When asked why he did not report the charges, he said he did not realize he had to report charges. When presented with the document, he identified his signature on it.
Mr. Adkin interviewed Ms He on October 29, 2009. She was not present when her husband was arrested on October 2, 2009. She said she normally does not work at the store. Her routine is to bring her husband lunch at the store every day. She returns to the house after her husband has his lunch. Her husband manages the store. She is not involved in the running of the store. She admitted to being charged on June 23, 2009, but indicated that she thought the charges were “cancelled” after she pled guilty. She advised that she did not sell any of the counterfeit DVDs. Her husband looked after DVD sales.
Referring to Tab 7 of the Book of Documents, Mr. Adkin confirmed that the October 2, 2009 charges for fraud under $5,000 were withdrawn, and Mr. He received a conditional discharge and 12 months probation for possession of property under $5,000 obtained by crime. Mr. Adkin indicated that to obtain a conditional discharge, Mr. He would have had to have pled guilty.
On cross-examination, Mr. Adkin stated that Mr. He was very cooperative when he met with him.
Mr. Frank Cuda has been the Deputy Registrar under the GCA for ten years. As Deputy Registrar, he is responsible for making registration suitability decisions.
His concerns relating to Mr. He’s suitability for registration relate to his ability to conduct himself with honesty and integrity, in accordance with the law and in the public interest. Gaming is a cash-intensive business, so the standard for qualifying for registration must be high. Registrants must be seen as being beyond reproach.
The Registrant was previously charged with fraud and possession of property obtained from crime. Mr. Cuda decided to give the Registrant a second chance, since this was the only blemish on its record, and approved the renewal of their registration with terms and conditions. The terms and conditions required that the Registrant notify the Deputy Registrar in writing within 10 days of any charges, convictions or findings of guilt. The Registrant failed to notify him of the second set of charges which occurred after the terms and conditions were signed.
Mr. Cuda believes that the immediate suspension was warranted and should be continued because the charges are recent and he failed to disclose them in accordance with the terms and conditions. For these reasons, he believes the Registrant will not be able to operate, as a gaming supplier, with honesty, integrity, in accordance with the law, and in the public interest.
Since the business is a partnership, Ms He is also responsible for the operation of the business.
On cross-examination, Mr. Cuda admitted that there have not been any issues with the Registrant relating to the sale of OLG lottery tickets.
Mr. Cuda admitted that if it were not for the second set of charges he would not have issued the OIS.
Mr. Cuda has no knowledge of Mr. He selling counterfeit DVDs after his first arrest.
There is no rule that a registration will be immediately suspended after charges. Every case is considered on its own merits.
In response to a question from the Board, Mr. Cuda stated that he was aware that English was not Mr. He’s first language and he did not take any steps to ensure that he understood the terms and conditions. He indicated that he sent the Registrant a letter, enclosing the terms and conditions, and indicating that he could be contacted with any questions. Mr. Cuda admitted, however, that the letter would have been in English.
Registrant’s Evidence
Mr. He stated that when his lottery retailer registration was suspended on December 4, 2009, tobacco sales also declined. Lottery sales represent about one fourth of total sales, and tobacco sales represent another one fourth.
Before he was charged the first time, he was not aware it was illegal to possess or sell the DVDs in question.
After he was charged the first time, he did not sell the DVDs any more. However, he did not know how to dispose of the DVDs because he had not paid the supplier for them. The supplier told him not to throw them out. He was afraid the supplier would give him a hard time if he threw them out. The supplier told him he was going to pick up the DVDs.
His wife never sold any DVDs.
He never told his lawyer there were pirated DVDs still in the store after his first arrest.
He told his wife to sign the terms and conditions. She did not understand what she was signing. Her English is worse than Mr. He’s. Mr. He also did not understand the terms and conditions when he signed them. Someone from the AGCO told him on the phone that he had to send the signed terms and conditions in right away, so he and his wife signed them and sent them in.
“Jensen”, the individual who signed the witness line of the terms and conditions, is a friend. Mr. He did not realize that the witness was supposed to be present when he and his wife were signing the terms and conditions.
He has never written any letters to the AGCO in English.
If he is allowed to continue to sell lottery tickets, he would make sure that he complied with the terms and conditions and the law. He would not sign anything until he understood it. He has only been in business for a year and did not have a lot of experience. He will do better in the future.
On cross-examination, he indicated he did not understand the document at Tab 1 of the Book of Documents (OIS). He understands why he is here today. He did not read the OIS when he received it. However, someone with an AGCO business card attended his establishment and told him he could not sell lottery tickets anymore on or about December 4, 2009. She gave him a document, but he could not understand it all. He spoke to his lawyer and provided him with the document.
He was afraid to throw away the DVDs. He has seen the DVD suppliers three or four times. The DVD supplier told him he would pick up the DVDs after the court time.
Mr. He denied that the DVDs were on the counter after he was charged the first time. The officer discovered the DVDs, when he arrested him the second time, under the counter.
He and his wife signed the terms and conditions about one week after he received a phone call from the AGCO telling him to submit the signed terms and conditions or his registration would not be renewed. Ms Chan filed a letter dated September 18, 2009 from Christian Boutilier to Mr. and Ms He, enclosing terms and conditions signed by Mr. He, which the Board entered as Exhibit 3. The letter stated that the terms and conditions must be signed and returned to the AGCO by October 2, 2000.
On re-examination, Mr. He stated that he tried to get the supplier to take away the DVDs after he was charged the first time.
He does not read English well. When he needs to complete a form in English, he typically asks a friend to help him.
Registrar’s Submissions
Mr. He was charged twice within a period of four months. The first time Mr. He was charged he pled guilty and received a conditional discharge with 12 months probation. The second time he was charged he pled guilty again and received another conditional discharge. On both occasions, the charges related to the possession of illegal DVDs. The fact that he was charged twice for the same offence shows that he does not take compliance with the law seriously.
The Registrant signed terms of registration on September 24, 2009. Mr. He was found to be in possession of illegal DVDs after signing the terms and conditions, and neither he nor Ms He disclosed it, in accordance with the terms and conditions.
The excuse of not understanding can only be relied on so often. Mr. Hutchinson explained the difference between “charges” and “convictions” to him. If he did not understand the terms and conditions, he should have had someone translate the document before he and his wife signed it. His failure to understand the first time, when he completed the renewal application, may have been genuine. However, claiming not to understand, when he signed the terms and conditions, is an abdication of his responsibilities, willful blindness or gross negligence. If he cannot make the effort to understand his obligations, he is not suited for the sale of gaming products. The AGCO cannot be expected to chase after registrants to make sure they understand everything they sign.
The gaming industry is rife with opportunities for registrants to take advantage of the public. The Registrar relies on registrants to conduct their businesses honestly and in accordance with the law, as it is not possible to monitor them daily. Public confidence demands that registrants with a history of non-compliance be prohibited from selling gaming products.
Registrant’s Submissions
Mr. Lee conceded that the Registrar’s concerns relating to Mr. He are legitimate and acknowledged that the Criminal Code offences he pled guilty to were serious. He also conceded that the OIS may have been initially justified. However, he respectfully requests that the Registrant be given a second chance.
Mr. He’s poor ability to speak, read and understand English is apparent. It was also apparent that he did not understand what was meant by witnessing a document.
Regarding the renewal application (Tab 5, Book of Documents), Mr. Lee submitted that “last year” could be interpreted as 2008 only, as opposed to 12 months from the date of filing the application.
Mr. and Ms He were very cooperative with the investigators. It is not fair to say that he was deliberately withholding information from the AGCO. Clearly he did not understand the documents.
He stopped selling the pirated DVDs in June when he learned it was illegal.
He asked the supplier to remove them from the store after he was charged the first time. He did not dispose of the DVDs because he was afraid of the supplier.
Ms He never sold DVDs.
The OIS of his lottery retailer registration has already had a big financial impact on his business. Total sales have been reduced by 50% - lottery sales represent one quarter of total sales, and tobacco sales are also down because he is no longer selling lottery tickets.
Mr. He has learned his lesson from this situation. In the future, he will ensure that he informs himself of his responsibilities and that he fully understands everything he signs.
Accordingly, he is requesting that the OIS be lifted. A six week suspension is justified in the circumstances, but a longer suspension is too harsh. In the alternative, Mr. Lee requested that the suspension be lifted, provided that the registration be changed so that only Ms He is named under it.
Reply Submissions
The business is a partnership and would require a reorganization to remove Mr. He from the registration. Such reorganization would not be practical or appropriate given that Mr. He is the one running the business. Ms He simply attends the premises to bring him lunch.
Ms Chan submitted that the Board should uphold the OIS until a hearing is held into the Notice of Proposal to revoke the registration.
Reasons and Analysis
Based on the past conduct of Mr. He, the Board has serious concerns about his ability to act as a gaming supplier in accordance with the law, with integrity, honesty and in the public interest, and believes it is necessary in the public interest to uphold the OIS.
Mr. He pled guilty to possession of DVDs obtained through crime, in contravention of section 355(b) of the Criminal Code twice in a period of four months, most recently, in October 2009. The criminal conduct is both serious and very recent. The fact that Mr. He committed that same offence twice in a period of four months indicates that he did not learn a lesson and correct his conduct after he pled guilty the first time. The Board did not accept, as an excuse for breaking the law the second time, Mr. He’s evidence that he did not dispose of the pirated DVDs because he was afraid of the DVD supplier. There were other options open to Mr. He which would not have involved breaking the law, such as refusing to accept delivery of the DVDs or involving the police.
The Board also considered, in deciding whether to uphold the OIS, the fact that the criminal conduct, on both occasions, occurred at the same premises to which the lottery retailer registration applies.
Mr. He has testified that he has learned from his mistakes and will not make the same mistakes in the future. However sincere Mr. He’s future intentions may be, they cannot override his recent, repetitive criminal conduct.
The Board also did not find Mr. He to be entirely forthright at the hearing. For instance, he stated that after he was charged the first time, he did not sell the DVDs anymore and he kept them behind the counter. While there was no evidence that Mr. He sold the DVDs after June 22, 2009, D.C. Rennie testified that when he attended the premises with a Smoking Enforcement Officer and secret shopper on October 2, 2009, he observed a box of DVDs on the counter. The Board preferred D.C. Rennie’s evidence over Mr. He’s because D.C. Rennie, in addition to having no self-interest in the outcome of the hearing, was attending the premises to check for compliance with the Smoke Free Ontario Act and would not have noticed the pirated DVDs unless they were in clear view on top of the counter. Indeed, at this time, D.C. Rennie had no knowledge of Mr. He’s prior record for possessing pirated DVDs. He only learned about Mr. He’s record when the dispatcher informed him of the results of the CPIC check on Mr. He. Further, Mr. He told Mr. Adkin (at the October 29, 2009 interview) that there were 100 DVDs on the counter when the police seized them on October 2, 2009.
The Registrar raised the issue of non-disclosure on the renewal application and non-compliance with the terms of registration, signed on September 24, 2009. The Board did not place any weight on these issues, in determining whether to uphold the OIC, as the Board was not satisfied that the Registrant understood the application form or terms and conditions. Mr. He used an interpreter at the hearing and it was apparent he had very limited abilities in the English language. Mr. Hutchinson was also very candid in acknowledging that Mr. He did not appear to understand the difference between “charges” and “convictions”. Ms Chan indicated that while Mr. He may not have understood the meaning of these words when he completed the renewal application, Mr. Hutchinson explained what they meant when he interviewed him, so he should have understood their meaning when he signed the terms and conditions. However, even if Mr. He understood the meaning of “charges” and “convictions” after meeting with Mr. Hutchinson, this is not to say he was able to read the terms and conditions and understand what was required of him under this document. There is a big difference between understanding when something is explained orally and being able to read and understand a written document. Mr. Cuda was also very candid in admitting that he knew Mr. He had limited abilities in the English language and did not take any steps to ensure he understood the terms and conditions.
Lottery retailers are spread out over thousands of retail outlets throughout the province. As such, they cannot be monitored by AGCO inspectors on a daily basis or even weekly basis. To ensure public confidence in the honesty and integrity of lottery retail operations, it is therefore imperative that lottery retailers meet very high standards of honesty and integrity. Given Mr. He’s recent and serious criminal conduct, the fact that he committed the same criminal offence twice in a four month period, the fact that the criminal conduct occurred at the same location where the lottery retailer registration applies, and Mr. He’s lack of forthrightness at the hearing, the Board considers it to be necessary in the public interest to uphold the OIS until such time as a hearing is held on the NOPO to revoke the registration.
The Board agrees with Ms Chan that it is not practical to stipulate that the registration be in the name of Ms He only, given that the business is a partnership and that Ms He has no involvement in the operation of the business at this time.
Order
- For the above reasons, the Board UPHOLDS the Order of Immediate Suspension of MIN YAO HE and XIAO YAN HE, operating as LAMBTON DAILY MART, 102 Lambton Avenue, Toronto, Ontario, M6N 2S9, registration number 00153973, as a gaming supplier, until a hearing is held and decision reached on the Notice of Proposed Order to revoke the aforementioned registration, on the basis that it is necessary in the public interest.
DATED AT TORONTO THIS 29th DAY OF January , 2010
JACQUELINE CASTEL, BOARD MEMBER BRUCE S. MILLER, BOARD MEMBER