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-
D.T.P. operating as N[...]
Registrant
DECISION
Panel: David C. Gavsie, Chair, AGCO Allan Higdon, Board Member
Decision Date: January 11, 2011
Hearing Location: London, 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 ) Dan Alakas, Representative
D.T.P., Registrant ) On her own behalf
Allegations
- A hearing into a Notice of Proposed Order (“NOPO”) dated July 12, 2010 to revoke the registration of D.T.P. operating as N[...], N[...] Avenue, Woodstock, Ontario, [...], as a gaming supplier in the class of Lottery Retailer and Break Open Ticket Seller, registration number 1[...], on the basis that there are reasonable grounds to believe that she will not act as a gaming registrant in accordance with law, or with integrity, honesty, or in the public interest in contravention of the Gaming Control Act, 1992 (the “GCA”), having regard to her past conduct, was held on December 3, 2010 in the City of London.
Decision
- The Board REVOKES the licence of D.T.P. to operate as a Lottery Retail Operator. Written reasons follow.
Preliminary Matters
The registrant appeared without counsel. Counsel had been retained but terminated by December 1, 2010. All disclosure had been forwarded to the registrant. The Chair advised her of her right to be represented at the hearing. She stated she chose to proceed without representation.
The registrant was accompanied by a friend who provided translation. Mr. Say Ly stated he was translating pro bono and he has previously done translation in similar situations.
Exclusion of witnesses ordered on consent of parties.
Registrar's Counsel presented exhibit #1: Registrar’s Book of Documents.
Registrar’s Evidence
Daryl Longworth was sworn and asked permission to use his notes to refresh his memory. The registrant denied permission, explaining she disagreed with the allegations. The Chair explained she could challenge allegations in cross-examination but the presentation of evidence was necessary first.
The Chair ruled the witness could use his notes. The objection of the registrant was noted.
The witness has been a member of the Woodstock Police Service since 1992 and is currently Deputy Chief.
The witness stated he was a detective in the Criminal Investigation Branch of the Woodstock Police in 1998 when he was advised of illegal gambling taking place on the premises of N[...] located at N[...] Avenue in the city of Woodstock.
A joint police investigation with the OPP took place with undercover officers. The officers obtained evidence of illegal payoffs on video gambling machines. It is illegal to give monetary payouts on games of chance.
The registrant, D.T.P., was the sole occupant of the premises at the time and paid officers in cash for gambling credits won.
On June 30, 1998 the witness met with members of the joint task force and executed a search warrant for N[...]. The registrant was in the store when seven machines were seized.
D.T.P. pleaded guilty and was convicted of Keeping a Common Gaming or Betting House contrary to section 201(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada. She paid a fine of $2,000.
There was no cross-examination.
Karen Overbauch is a Detective Constable with the Woodstock Police Service. She works in plain clothes in the Criminal Investigations Branch, specializing in sexual assault against children. She has taken various courses on this topic at the Ontario Police College.
In August 2008 the witness received a complaint from the Children’s Aid Society. It was alleged that three children were sexually assaulted by D.T.P..
On August 19, 2008 the witness interviewed the three children. They are the biological children of the registrant aged 13, and twins aged 12. They had been taken care of by foster parents who made the complaint.
On August 20, 2008, police arrested and charged D.T.P. with sexual assault contrary to section 153(a) of the Criminal Code and sexual exploitation contrary to section 271 of the Criminal Code.
On August 21, 2008, the registrant was released with conditions and her children were placed in foster care.
On August 18, 2010, D.T.P. was convicted of sexual exploitation, sentenced to 25 days in jail and placed on probation for three years.
The witness stated to the best of her knowledge the children were still in foster care.
There was no cross-examination.
Frank Ryder has been with the AGCO since October 2007 and is an investigator with the enforcement unit.
The witness was assigned to conduct an investigation to determine why D.T.P. failed to disclose charges and convictions when she submitted her original lottery licence application and renewal.
The witness referred to Tab #2 of the Registrar’s Book of Documents.
Question 2 asks:
“Has/Have : D.T.P. been charged, found guilty or convicted of any type of offence in any jurisdiction in the last year?”
Underneath the word “No” is checked off.
On the page 2 Tab #2 the applicant states:
“I declare that all the answers provided in this application, as well as all the information contained in the documents and materials submitted with it, are to the best of my knowledge and belief, true and complete.”
The signature of the registrant is below and dated October 18, 2008.
The witness noted Tab #3, page 3 in the Registrar’s Book of Documents on which the sexual assault and sexual exploitation charges against D.T.P. are sworn and dated August 21, 2008.
This date is less than two months before D.T.P. completed her registration form denying any outstanding charges or convictions.
In addition to the outstanding charges, the Registrant failed to disclose criminal convictions on her registration form.
In 1999, D.T.P. was convicted of Keeping a Common Gaming or Betting House and fined $2,000.
D.T.P. was convicted in 1990 of theft under $1,000 for which she received a conditional discharge and placed on probation for six months.
The witness arranged an interview on June 29, 2009 with D.T.P. at the Oxford Police station.
Ms D.T.P. was asked why she had failed to disclose the charges outstanding against her on her registration form dated October 18, 2008. She stated she did not disclose because the charges against her were not true and she was not guilty.
D.T.P. told the witness her babysitter had slandered her, accusing her of being an alcoholic who had numerous boyfriends. The babysitter was the cause of all the problems.
When asked by the witness why she failed to disclose her 1999 conviction of Keeping a Common Gaming or Betting House when she made her original application for a Lottery Sales Licence in 2007, Ms D.T.P. stated a customer had helped her fill out her application form. He had told her the AGCO was interested in charges only six years old, not ten years old.
Ms D.T.P. admitted to the police raid and seizure of gambling machines. However, she said she was at that time merely an employee of the video store, not the owner.
Ms D.T.P. stated she did not know the machines were gambling machines. Her boss told her that if she didn’t plead guilty, they could not sell lottery tickets.
With regard to the theft conviction of 1990, Ms D.T.P. stated she could not remember as it was too long ago.
The witness learned that on August 18, 2010, Ms D.T.P. was found guilty of three counts of sexual interference, with three charges of sexual assault stayed. She was sentenced to 25 days in jail and probation for three years.
The witness stated he visited N[...] on one occasion at noon. It was closed, despite a sign saying the store opened at 10:00 am. The store is authorized to sell scratch and win tickets. It does not have a lottery terminal.
On cross-examination, the witness stated he interviewed the registrant at the Oxford Police station. His practice is to make a note of any language difficulties. He did not consider that necessary in this case as he considered Ms D.T.P.’s grasp of English to be sufficient.
Frank Cuda is a Deputy Registrar at the AGCO and has been manager of the Gaming Registration and Lottery group since September 1999.
The witness is responsible for reviewing lottery applications and determining if the applicant is suitable for registration under the GCA. Ms D.T.P. is registered as a lottery retailer for break-open ticket sales and other OLG products.
As part of the investigation process the AGCO checks criminal records and police reports for possible criminal activity. Financial information is also obtained from various credit rating sources.
The witness stated the GCA is designed to protect the public and eliminate fraud. All registrants must provide sufficient belief that they will conduct themselves in compliance with the law and act at all times with honesty and integrity.
Ms D.T.P.’s record gives the AGCO more than reasonable grounds to believe she does not meet this standard. Her failure to disclose outstanding charges and her criminal record does not indicate honest behaviour.
Given her criminal record and failure to disclose, the AGCO does not consider D.T.P. as suitable for a Registrant under the GCA.
The witness reviewed and confirmed the dates as given by the previous witness of D.T.P.’s application and renewal and her failure to disclose any outstanding charges or convictions on either occasion.
Registrant’s Evidence
D.T.P. stated she came from Viet Nam and needs her OLG licence to make a living at her variety store. She acknowledged she sometimes makes mistakes due to her difficulty with English.
On the Keeping a Common Gaming or Betting House criminal conviction, she was told by the former owner to plead guilty.
The 1990 theft conviction happened because friends put something in her bag in a shop.
The sexual assault charges and convictions are not true. They were completely made up by the babysitter.
The witness said she did not fill out the registration form herself (Exhibit #1, Tab #2) but did acknowledge that she signed page 2 of the exhibit.
On cross-examination the witness stated she thought criminal convictions were not necessary to record after 6-8 years.
In response to the panel, the witness stated she came to Canada in 1986, started working at the store in 1990 and became owner in 2006. She is divorced.
Ms D.T.P. stated she orders supplies for the store and deals with her customers.
Registrar’s Submissions
Registrar's Counsel stated he sought the revocation of the licence of the registrant to act as a Lottery Retail Operator.
The past conduct of the registrant affords reasonable belief that she would not act in accordance with the law and with honesty and integrity.
In 1990, Ms D.T.P. was convicted of theft under $1,000.
In 1999, Ms D.T.P. was convicted of Keep a Common Betting or Gaming House and fined $2,000.
In 2008, Ms D.T.P. was charged with three counts of sexual assault and three counts of sexual interference.
These convictions and charges indicate a breach of trust, an abuse of authority, an intention to deceive and fraud.
The past conduct of the registrant clearly indicates a lack of integrity and honesty.
In each of the criminal convictions the registrant has shown no remorse. She has accepted no responsibility or accountability.
The registrant blames her theft conviction on friends, the gaming conviction on her boss, and the sexual assault charges on her babysitter.
The registrant also stated her failure to disclose charges and convictions is the result of a friend filling out the renewal form.
The registrant marked, “No,” to acknowledging any charges or convictions although at the time she had been convicted twice of Criminal Code offences and had been charged less than two months previously with six offences. Clearly she did not act in accordance with the law.
It is vital for the public interest that the perception of the gaming industry be one in which honesty and integrity prevail.
The registrant has demonstrated a pattern of criminal acts and proven herself to be untrustworthy. She has shown, based on past behaviour, that she will not act with honesty and integrity.
The Registrar therefore asks that the licence of the registrant as a Lottery Retail Operator be revoked.
Registrant Submissions
Ms D.T.P. asked the panel to please not revoke her licence to sell OLG products.
There was no reply submission.
Analysis and Reasons
Counsel for the Registrar has requested that the licence held by D.T.P. to act as a Lottery Retail Operator be revoked. He asks as the registrant has committed offences that demonstrate she will not conduct business in accordance with the law and with honesty and integrity.
Witnesses presented unrefuted testimony confirming the following facts:
In 1990, D.T.P. was convicted of theft under $1,000;
In 1999, D.T.P. was convicted of Keeping a Common Gaming or Betting House;
In 2008, D.T.P. was charged with 3 counts each of sexual assault and sexual exploitation.
None of these was declared when Ms D.T.P. applied for her original licence or completed a renewal form.
Exhibit #1, the Registrar’s Book of Documents contains documentation to support his allegations.
Tab #2 of the exhibit contains the renewal application of D.T.P. as a Lottery Retail Operator. Question #2 specifically asks the Applicant if she has “been charged, found guilty or convicted of any type of offence in any jurisdiction in the past year?”
Beneath that question she has checked off the word, “No”.
On the following page the Applicant signed a declaration confirming that all the information she presented and any documentation provided is “to the best of my knowledge and belief, true and complete.”
Her signature is dated October 18, 2008.
Documentation in tab #3 of Exhibit #1 shows the Applicant had been charged with six criminal code offences on August 21, 2008, less than two months before her declaration of renewal, yet these charges were not declared.
Ms D.T.P. admitted the declaration signature was her true signature. She also admitted to the 1990 theft conviction and 1999 conviction for Keeping a Common Gaming or Betting House.
Ms D.T.P. at one point stated she had an insufficient grasp of English to understand her obligation to disclose. However, she testified she is the sole owner of her business and personally orders supplies and deals with customers.
In addition, the AGCO investigator, Frank Ryder, testified he interviewed Ms D.T.P. and specifically made no note of any language difficulties as he considered her English to be competent enough for the purposes of the interview. The panel does not consider her claim to inadequate understanding of English to be credible.
The criminal behaviour of the registrant has been conducted over many years. Despite this, she denies responsibility for all offences and charges, blaming others.
Order
The Board FINDS there are reasonable grounds to conclude the registrant would not act as a Lottery Retail Operator in accordance with the law, with honesty and integrity or in the public interest as evidenced by the criminal convictions registered against her and her failure to disclose convictions and charges as required on her applications for registration and renewal.
The Board therefore REVOKES, effective immediately, the licence of D.T.P. operating as N[...], N[...] Avenue, Woodstock, Ontario, [...], registration number 1[...] as a gaming supplier to conduct business as a Lottery Retailer.
DATED AT TORONTO THIS 11th DAY OF JANUARY, 2011
DAVID C. GAVSIE, CHAIR, AGCO ALLAN HIGDON, BOARD MEMBER