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-
Semih Sheyda Bilbas operating as S&S Registrant
DECISION
Panel: David C. Gavsie, Former Chair, AGCO S. Grace Kerr, Board Member
Decision Date: May 19, 2011 Hearing Location: Ottawa, 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 ) Tamara Brooks, Representative Semih Sheyda Bilbas, Registrant ) Semih Bilbas, On his own behalf
Allegations
1A hearing into a Notice of Proposed Order dated October 6, 2010 to refuse the registration of Semih Sheyda Bilbas operating as S&S, 2565 Old Montreal Road, Cumberland, Ontario, K4C 1A1 (the “Applicant”), as a gaming supplier, in the class of lottery retailer, registration number 180099, on the basis of alleged violations of section 10 of the Gaming Control Act, 1992 (“the GCA”), was held on February 8, 2011 in the City of Ottawa.
Decision
2After considering all the evidence and submissions the Board refuses the registration of Semih Sheyda Bilbas operating as S&S as a gaming supplier, in the class of lottery retailer. Reasons follow.
Preliminary Matters
3On consent, the Board ordered that witnesses be excluded from the hearing.
4The Applicant appeared on his own behalf and waived the right to be represented by a legal representative authorized by the Law Society of Upper Canada.
Registrar’s Evidence
5Mr. Frank Cuda, a Deputy Registrar of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario (“AGCO”), testified on behalf of the Registrar.
6Mr. Cuda explained that the AGCO undertakes a due diligence process and conducts routine checks (e.g. CPIC and Equifax) once an application for registration is received and has been reviewed.
7In this case, these procedures were followed regarding Mr. Bilbas’ application, dated August 4, 2010 (“the application”), and discrepancies were noted. As a result, the application came to Mr. Cuda’s attention.
8Specifically, Mr. Bilbas had answered ‘no’ to both questions 9a and 9b in the application, which read as follows:
- Charges/Convictions/Findings of Guilt
a. Has the applicant or individual ever been found guilty or convicted of an offence under any law, including provincial and criminal offences? Note: This includes where a conditional or absolute discharge has been ordered. (Italics in original)
b. Are there any charges outstanding against the applicant or individual under any law, in any jurisdiction?
9The AGCO’s due diligence showed that Mr. Bilbas had the following charges and convictions, on the noted dates and in the noted places:
- theft under $5,000, May 16, 1996, Ottawa, Ontario;
- theft under $5,000, March 9, 1998, Ottawa, Ontario; and,
- theft under $5,000, February 8, 2010, Gatineau, Quebec.
10Mr. Cuda arranged for Mr. Bilbas to be interviewed by one of the AGCO’s investigators, Mr. James Hutchinson.
11Mr. Cuda seeks an order to refuse Mr. Bilbas’ registration as a lottery retailer because:
- the (false) information provided by Mr. Bilbas in the application form makes Mr. Cuda concerned that Mr. Bilbas has not conducted himself with honesty and integrity from the outset in his dealings with the AGCO; and,
- his past conduct, that is, the nature of the Mr. Bilbas’ offences in and of themselves, raises concerns that he cannot operate with honesty and integrity.
12Following Mr. Cuda’s testimony in chief, the Board made Mr. Bilbas aware of his right to cross-examine him, and invited Mr. Bilbas to do so. However, he declined, saying that he had no questions for Mr. Cuda.
13The Board did not have any questions of him, either.
14Mr. James Hutchinson testified next on behalf of the Registrar. He has been a corporate investigator with the AGCO for the past 3½ years. Previously, Mr. Hutchinson was an officer with the Ontario Provincial Police, retiring in 2004 with the rank of Detective Superintendent.
15He met with Mr. Bilbas at his store on September 10, 2010. He conducted a private interview with him in a back room/office there.
16Mr. Bilbas answered ‘no’ when Mr. Hutchinson asked him if there had been any changes to the application since he had completed it.
17Mr. Hutchinson also went through the entire application with Mr. Bilbas, reading each question to him and eliciting his answers. Again, Mr. Bilbas answered ‘no’ to both questions 9a. and 9b, being the same as he had answered in the application.
18Mr. Hutchinson testified that since 1979 Mr. John Haddad, along with his wife, Afifa, had operated as a lottery retailer at the location of Mr. Bilbas’ store. Mr. Bilbas had purchased the inventory of the store and the change of ownership had taken place on August 26, 2010. Mr. Hutchinson described it as a “typical store in a small town”.
19Mr. Bilbas had paid the security deposit to the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation.
20When asked why he had not disclosed the 1996 and 1998 criminal convictions, Mr. Bilbas asked Mr. Hutchinson what the word ‘convicted’ meant. He wondered if it meant that he was “charged” now.
21After Mr. Hutchinson explained the meaning of the word ‘convicted’ to Mr. Bilbas, Mr. Bilbas indicated that Mr. Haddad had been with him when the application was completed. While Mr. Bilbas did not say so, per se, Mr. Hutchinson was left with the impression that Mr. Bilbas had been embarrassed about admitting to the convictions in front of Mr. Haddad.
22Mr. Hutchinson also asked Mr. Bilbas why he was on probation at that time: in response, Mr. Bilbas’ information was “sketchy”. He explained that he had been shopping with his wife at Costco in 2006 ("the Costco incident"), that they were returning a purse, that he and she were charged with stealing a camera worth about $200, and that he had taken the blame because he had the “background.” As well, he told Mr. Hutchinson that he was not aware of being on probation, although he knew that he was not to attend at Costco and that he had paid a $400 fine.
23Mr. Bilbas told Mr. Hutchinson that he and his wife were now separated.
24Mr. Hutchinson asked Mr. Bilbas to send him copies of any court documents he had in his possession. On September 13, 2010, Mr. Hutchinson received a copy of Mr. Bilbas’ probation order, sent by facsimile transmission.
25During the interview, Mr. Bilbas told Mr. Hutchinson that he understood English quite well, but not French.
26Mr. Bilbas confirmed that he had filed for bankruptcy and had been discharged. This information had been disclosed on the application.
27Mr. Hutchinson ordered and obtained copies of reports from the Ottawa Police Service regarding the 1996 and 1998 incidents, in addition to information from the Gatineau Police relating to the 2006/2010 incident/conviction.
28These reports indicate that:
- in November 1995, Mr. Bilbas and his common law spouse were charged with theft. Only Mr. Bilbas was convicted by an Ontario court and was fined $75 and placed on 2 years probation. He pled guilty;
- on March 9, 1998, Mr. Bilbas was convicted by an Ontario court of stealing property, valued at under $5,000. He was fined $150 and given 12 months probation. Again, Mr. Bilbas pled guilty. Also, at the time of the offence both Mr. Bilbas and his common law spouse were in the store;
- finally, the Gatineau Police reports confirm that on February 8, 2010 Mr. Bilbas was convicted by a Quebec court of theft under $5,000 in relation to the Costco incident. He was fined $400 (plus surcharges) and given one year’s probation. Once again, Mr. Bilbas pled guilty and, at the time of the offence, both Mr. Bilbas and his common law spouse were in the store.
29Following Mr. Hutchinson’s direct evidence, the Board invited Mr. Bilbas to cross-examine him, but again Mr. Bilbas declined the opportunity, saying that what Mr. Hutchinson said was all true.
30In response to questions from the Board, Mr. Hutchinson testified that Mr. Bilbas did not “offer anything up” when Mr. Hutchinson explained the differences between being “charged,” being found “guilty,” and currently being “charged.”
31Also, Mr. Bilbas told Mr. Hutchinson that he could not remember any of the specifics relating to his various convictions. He indicated that he could not recall what was taken or what the charges were. Mr. Hutchinson was surprised by this response.
32Mr. Hutchinson clarified that Mr. Bilbas provided a copy of his probation order (in relation to the February 8, 2010 conviction) as a result of Mr. Hutchinson’s interview on September 9, 2010, and not before then.
33Lastly, Constable (“Cst.”) David Raymond testified on behalf of the Registrar. He has been an officer with the Gatineau Police since March 2004. On November 27, 2007, the Gatineau Police received a telephone call regarding a theft at the Costco store, Promenade Mall, Gatineau, Quebec. A security officer at the store alleged that he had seen two people, Mr. Bilbas and his common law spouse, steal a DVD and a camera from the store.
34Cst. Raymond arrested both Mr. Bilbas and his spouse, and then released each one on their own recognizance. The officer confirmed the information from the Gatineau Police’s database detailing Mr. Bilbas’ 2010 conviction and the sentence imposed.
35In cross-examination, Cst. Raymond confirmed that he gave Mr. Bilbas his rights and urged him to exercise his right to remain silent.
36The Board did not have any questions for this witness.
Registrant’s Evidence
37Mr. Bilbas testified on his own behalf.
38He advised the Board that his ex-wife had an attitude that she wanted to take something from stores even though they did not need it. He is currently separated and the single father of two children.
39From 1994 – 2000, Mr. Bilbas, his wife, and his two children were on “social welfare.” He testified that “maybe sometimes” she stole things when he was with her. If charged, they would plead guilty and try to get on with things.
40In relation to the 2010 conviction, he said that he did not know about the “one year probation;” he just thought that he was not to go back to Costco.
41Mr. Bilbas testified that it was embarrassing to admit his convictions in front of his boss (Mr. Haddad). Also, he did not think it was important to reveal his convictions on the application because it “wasn’t a government application to get a job.”
42He stated that selling lottery products is important for the store, as well as for the community. He had run the machine for 26 or 27 days before it was taken away last August 26.
43Mr. Bilbas took over the business effective August 1, 2010.
44He has been in Canada since 1989 and became a Canadian citizen in 1995. Prior to 1996, he did not have any criminal convictions.
45In cross-examination, Mr. Bilbas agreed that he was in court three times for shoplifting and that he pled guilty each time. Mr. Bilbas also said that although he pled guilty, he was not guilty.
46He also agreed that on all three occasions when he was in court for the theft charges, the facts were read out and that he admitted those facts to be true.
47Mr. Bilbas agreed that he understands the difference between “guilty” and “not guilty.” He concurred that, on all three occasions when he was in court for the theft charges, the presiding judge said, “I find you guilty.”
48Mr. Bilbas agreed that while he did not understand what a conviction is, he understands the word “guilty.” He also agreed that Question 9a in the application asks, in part, “Have you ever been found guilty?” He agreed that he had read that question before answering it.
49Mr. Bilbas also agreed that Mr. Haddad was with him when he completed the application and that, while he understood the question being asked, he was embarrassed to admit that before Mr. Haddad that he had been found guilty of theft on three previous occasions.
50Again, in cross-examination he confirmed that he did not think the application was important, that it was not like an application with the government for a job. Mr. Bilbas further explained that he thought that maybe he could fix the answers on his application form later.
51Mr. Bilbas agreed that, after filing it, the application had once been returned to him to correct an error on the first page (question 4). He said that he also wondered about fixing question 9 as well at that time, but thought, “Maybe it’s not important.”
52Mr. Bilbas admitted that he knew he had lied on the application.
53When asked if he planned on “fixing” question 9 after Mr. Haddad had left, he disagreed and said that he thought he could “get away with that one” because the application was not important, not like a government job.
54Mr. Bilbas took over business on August 1 of last year. Before then, he was training with Mr. Haddad, even though the lottery machine registration was not in Mr. Bilbas’ name. Rather, it was in Mr. Haddad’s name. Mr. Haddad always worked with him in the store.
55From August 1 – 26, 2010, the store belonged to Mr. Bilbas, but the OLG accounts remained with Mr. Haddad, who also remained in the store and continued to teach Mr. Bilbas the business. Mr. Bilbas was operating the lottery machine and handling the money it generated. Twice a week, the OLG took money generated by the lottery retailing machine from Mr. Haddad’s account and Mr. Bilbas had to pay Mr. Haddad an equivalent amount.
56Mr. Bilbas acknowledged that Mr. Haddad and his wife had the agreement with the OLG.
57In response to a question from the Board, Mr. Bilbas testified that he had no choice but to lie to Mr. Hutchinson when Mr. Hutchinson interviewed him on September 9th, as he did not want Mr. Haddad to know about the convictions. Also, he thought if he told Mr. Hutchinson that he was guilty, Mr. Hutchinson would have to write down that fact.
58Mr. Bilbas thought that the word ‘conviction’ meant, “You’re going to jail”. However, when Mr. Hutchinson explained it and said that he had to answer ‘yes’ to question 9a, he told Mr. Hutchinson about what had happened.
59When Mr. Bilbas was asked if he had not in fact told Mr. Hutchinson about the convictions because he thought he could continue to get away with it, he replied that he thought it “wasn’t that much important.”
Registrar’s Submissions
60The NOPO to refuse Mr. Bilbas’ application for registration is further to the provisions of subsection 10(b) of the GCA.
61The Registrar pointed out that gaming, as a regulated industry in Ontario, requires suppliers of gaming services to have the utmost honesty and integrity. At a minimum, the public interest demands those qualities.
62Specifically in this case, Mr. Bilbas is not entitled to registration based on reasonable grounds that suggest Mr. Bilbas will not act in accordance with law, and with integrity, honesty, or in the public interest.
63These reasonable grounds are:
- Mr. Bilbas has been found guilty and convicted, twice in Ontario and once in Quebec, for crimes of dishonesty or moral turpitude;
- When the time came for him to apply to the AGCO as a lottery retailer, Mr. Bilbas lied on the application about his three criminal convictions;
- Mr. Bilbas knew he lied on the application. Specifically, he admitted to findings of “guilt.” He had no difficulty comprehending the concept of guilt. He admitted to pleading guilty before a court of law and had been found guilty by a court on three separate occasions;
- Notwithstanding all of Mr. Bilbas’ different explanations for why he answered ‘no’ to question 9a in the application, he lied because he was embarrassed to admit in front of Mr. Haddad that he had convictions or findings of guilt. As well, he thought he could get away with it;
- Mr. Bilbas intentionally lied and intentionally deceived, or attempted to deceive the AGCO, because he did not think it was important. As Mr. Bilbas said, it was not like he was applying for a government job or anything. This is exactly the type of dishonesty that the Registrar does not want involved in the lottery industry;
- Even if the Board is sympathetic to Mr. Bilbas’ explanations for why he got involved in the thefts and who was really responsible for them, if he was not guilty then he lied to a court of law, which is no better than lying in the application to the AGCO; and,
- Lying on the application is dishonest, demonstrates a lack of integrity, and is certainly not in any way in the public's interest.
64Based on his conduct and what he has admitted to at the hearing, the Registrar submits that Mr. Bilbas is not an appropriate candidate for registration, and asks that the NOPO be upheld.
Registrant’s Submissions
65Mr. Bilbas submitted that he understands the word “integrity,” and he told the Board the truth.
66After Mr. Hutchinson explained the word ‘convicted’ to him, he corrected the application. He was embarrassed before (that is, when he first completed the application), and did not have any time before then in to correct it, so he just sent it in to the Board.
Analysis/Reasons/Findings
67The Board has carefully considered the evidence before it and the submissions of the parties. It concludes that Mr. Bilbas’ application for registration as a lottery retailer should be refused and the NOPO should be upheld, for the following reasons.
68The AGCO’s mandate is to regulate the alcohol and gaming sectors in accordance with the law, the principles of honesty and integrity, and in the public interest. These requirements are embodied in subsection 10 of the GCA, which provides as follows:
- The Registrar shall refuse to register an applicant as a supplier ...... if,
i. ......
ii. there are reasonable grounds to believe that the applicant will not act as a supplier in accordance with law, or with integrity, honesty, or in the public interest, having regard to the past conduct of, … the applicant .... (emphasis added)
69The Board did not find Mr. Bilbas’ explanations for why he lied on the application form to be credible on several fronts.
70First, he was found guilty of theft on three occasions, twice in Ontario (in 1996 and 1998) and once in Quebec (in 2010). However, at the hearing, he alleged that his wife and not he was responsible for this criminal behaviour. However, there was no evidence to support this self-serving contention. Rather, the evidence is to the contrary. Three times Mr. Bilbas was charged with theft: each time, he pled guilty.
71Even if it was Mr. Bilbas’ wife who committed the thefts as Mr. Bilbas contends, at the hearing Mr. Bilbas admitted that he understood the difference between pleading 'not guilty' or 'guilty'. What's more, the fact that he was embarrassed to admit to these convictions in front of Mr. Haddad, while they were completing his application for registration, is further proof that Mr. Bilbas understood the meaning of the word 'guilty'.
72It also shows that Mr. Bilbas understood what was being asked in questions 9a and 9b of the application form. But, he deliberately chose to answer them dishonestly. In other words, his contention that he did not understand the meaning of the word 'conviction' is not credible.
73Similarly, the Board finds disingenuous Mr. Bilbas’ claim to Mr. Hutchinson that he did not recall the details of the circumstances that led to his convictions or the details of his charges. He knew about and remembered everything. That was why he felt embarrassed to admit to the convictions in front of Mr. Haddad.
74What’s more, he deemed the information as “unimportant” to his application. Repeatedly in his evidence, he used those exact words to explain his false answer to questions 9a and 9b. As such, the Board does not believe that Mr. Bilbas intended to “fix (his application) later,” as claimed. Rather, Mr. Bilbas thought that he might be able to get away with his lies, as he acknowledged in cross-examination.
75Besides Mr. Bilbas’ cavalier attitude towards such an important document as his application for registration as a lottery retailer – a product line that would have been an important aspect of his new business - the Board was concerned that Mr. Bilbas did not avail himself of the first opportunity to rectify the inaccuracies in the application.
76Indeed, Mr. Bilbas stated at the hearing that he “had no choice but to lie to (Mr. Hutchinson) .... because he did not want his landlord to know about (his three prior convictions).” When Mr. Hutchinson met with Mr. Bilbas and went over his application form, at the very least, he should have told the AGCO investigator the truth then. Instead though, he chose to lie yet again.
77Once more, Mr. Bilbas’ explanation for lying to Mr. Hutchinson did not ring true in the Board’s view. After all, Mr. Bilbas’ landlord was not present for the meeting between the AGCO investigator and Mr. Bilbas.
78For all of these reasons, the Board finds that Mr. Bilbas’ admitted lies proves his ‘dishonesty’ within the meaning of subsection 10(b) of the GCA.
79Furthermore, being a registered lottery retailer is, in essence, a position of trust: trustworthiness is at the root of the concept of ‘integrity’ within the meaning of that word as found in subsection 10(b) of the GGA. Honesty, uprightness, and fidelity are its hallmarks: dishonesty is its antonym.
80On the facts of this case the Board cannot feel confident that Mr. Bilbas will be a trust-worthy lottery retailer in view of the extensiveness of his prevarications. The multiplicity of Mr. Bilbas’ deceptions - by his contention at the hearing that he lied to the criminal courts (if indeed he was ‘not guilty’ when he pleaded otherwise) and on his application initially, compounded by lying to Mr. Hutchinson - goes to the heart of the issue of Mr. Bilbas’ integrity.
81This pattern of dishonesty is very concerning to the Board. It also seems pervasive: not only is it evident in his personal choices (i.e. the thefts), it is shown as well in relation to persons of considerable authority (e.g. judges, AGCO representatives).
82For these reasons, the Board finds that the Registrar has proven the Applicant’s (lack of) integrity, within the meaning of the legislation.
83The Board also finds that to register a lottery retailer who has significant issues with honesty and personal integrity, such as Mr. Bilbas, is contrary to the public's interest. This is exactly the type of person that the legislation does not want involved in the lottery industry. In other words, Mr. Bilbas is not an appropriate candidate for registration as a lottery retailer.
84Sadly, had Mr. Bilbas simply answered questions 9a and 9b in his application form honestly in the first instance, the fact that he has a criminal record might not, in and of itself, have lead the Registrar to refuse his application. To that extent, Mr. Bilbas may have been right: it may not have proven too important in the end. But for the foregoing reasons, the Board finds that there are reasonable grounds to believe that Mr. Bilbas will not act as a gaming supplier with integrity, honesty, or in the public interest, having regard to his past conduct.
85In conclusion, the NOPO should be allowed.
Order
86For the above reasons the Board REFUSES the application for registration of Semih Sheyda Bilbas operating as S&S as a gaming assistant/supplier, in the category of lottery retailer.
DATED AT TORONTO THIS 19th DAY OF MAY, 2011
DAVID C. GAVSIE, FORMER CHAIR, AGCO S. GRACE KERR, BOARD MEMBER