Aviva R. Harari

The appellant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision confirming the revocation of his registration as a class 2 gaming assistant.

The revocation followed an incident where the appellant found and took home approximately $2,000 from a casino floor.

The appellant argued the Tribunal violated procedural fairness and made an error of law by imposing a sanction disproportionate to his conduct, citing employment law principles.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that proportionality of sanction is not a procedural fairness issue and that employment law principles do not apply to regulatory proceedings focused on protecting the public interest.

The Registrar, Alcohol, Gaming and Racing appealed a decision of the Ontario Licence Appeal Tribunal which directed the Registrar not to suspend the liquor licence of The Royal Oak.

The Registrar had proposed a 60-day suspension after an intoxicated patron left the premises and was later found dead in the snow, arguing the licensee's obligation not to permit drunkenness included ensuring the patron arrived at a safe place.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Tribunal's decision reasonable and holding that s. 45(1) of O. Reg. 719/90 does not impose an ongoing obligation on a licensee to ensure a patron's safe arrival at a destination after leaving the premises.

The Ontario Harness Horse Association (OHHA) appealed a decision by the Director of the Ontario Racing Commission allocating Standardbred Revenue Allocation (SRA) marketing funds to both OHHA and the Central Ontario Standardbred Association (COSA).

The funds, totaling over $2.1 million, were held in trust by the Woodbine Entertainment Group after its contract with OHHA expired and it entered a new contract with COSA.

The majority of the panel denied the appeal, finding it had jurisdiction to hear the matter de novo and to interpret the underlying Memorandum of Understanding and Business Plan in the best interests of racing.

The panel concluded that COSA qualifies as a provincially recognized horsepersons' association and ordered the funds to be distributed proportionally between OHHA and COSA based on wagering levels and racetrack affiliations, subject to conditions on their use for marketing.

A dissenting member would have allocated all funds to OHHA.

The appellant appealed a 40-day liquor licence suspension imposed by the Licence Appeal Tribunal for selling alcohol to intoxicated patrons and permitting drunkenness, following two separate incidents where patrons left the establishment and were later found suffering from hypothermia (one fatally).

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no errors of law in the Tribunal's assessment of evidence, no procedural unfairness from an incomplete recording of the hearing, and no error in principle regarding the sanction imposed.

The appellant appealed a License Appeal Tribunal decision revoking his registration as a gaming supplier under the Gaming Control Act, 1992.

The revocation followed the discovery of counterfeit DVDs and unmarked cigarettes at his convenience store, and his subsequent disregard for an immediate suspension order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the tribunal's reasons were adequate and that the penalty of revocation was reasonable given the appellant's pattern of dishonesty and lack of respect for the law.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Licence Appeal Tribunal suspending its liquor licence for 55 days after a patron was overserved, became intoxicated, and was subsequently struck and killed by a vehicle.

The Divisional Court found that the tribunal reasonably concluded the appellant breached the Liquor Licence Act by serving an intoxicated person and permitting drunkenness on the premises.

The court held that the tribunal applied the correct legal tests, properly weighed the evidence, and imposed a reasonable penalty.

The appeal was dismissed.

The Appellant appealed Notices of Proposal to suspend its liquor licence for allegedly permitting drunkenness, serving intoxicated patrons, and encouraging immoderate consumption of alcohol.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the Appellant permitted drunkenness and served intoxicated patrons on two occasions, as the patrons displayed obvious signs of intoxication that staff ought to have noticed.

However, the Tribunal found no evidence that the Appellant encouraged immoderate consumption, as serving multiple drinks at last call on one occasion did not constitute a practice or program.

A preliminary motion to compel the Deputy Registrar to testify was dismissed as irrelevant to the de novo proceeding.

The appellant, a registered gaming assistant, appealed an Order of Immediate Suspension issued by the Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming after he was charged with assault and obstructing a police officer following an off-duty incident at a hotel.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the Registrar failed to establish that the immediate suspension was necessary in the public interest.

The Tribunal noted the lack of evidence regarding the alleged assault, the appellant's compliance with disclosure requirements, his unblemished work record, and the Registrar's 37-day delay in issuing the suspension.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to set aside the suspension order.

The Appellant, a registered gaming assistant, appealed a Notice of Proposal to revoke his registration.

The Registrar sought revocation because the Appellant refused to be interviewed by an inspector regarding criminal charges that had been laid against him, which were later withdrawn.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the Appellant breached his duty to facilitate an investigation under section 30 of the Gaming Control Act, 1992.

However, the Tribunal determined that revocation was too harsh a penalty given the Appellant's otherwise unblemished record and ultimate compliance.

The Tribunal substituted a 10-day suspension.

The appellant appealed an Order of Monetary Penalty issued by the Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming for infractions under the Liquor Licence Act.

The Registrar alleged that the appellant permitted drunkenness and sold liquor outside prescribed hours.

The appellant admitted the infractions.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal confirmed the $1,500 monetary penalty, noting it had no jurisdiction to vary the amount.

The Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming issued an order imposing two $1,000 monetary penalties against the applicant licence holder for permitting drunkenness on its premises on two separate occasions.

On appeal, the Licence Appeal Tribunal found that on the first occasion, the patron was drunk and the applicant knew or ought to have known of the intoxication, confirming the penalty.

On the second occasion, while the patron was found to be drunk, there was insufficient evidence to establish that the applicant knew or ought to have known, as the determinative actions occurred in the washroom away from staff.

The Tribunal confirmed the first penalty and set aside the second.

The Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming issued a Notice of Proposal to suspend the applicant's liquor licence for 14 days, alleging that a patron was assaulted by representatives of the licence holder.

Following a hearing, the Tribunal found as a matter of fact that no such assault occurred.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar not to carry out the Notice of Proposal.

The Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming proposed to suspend the applicant's liquor licence for 14 days, alleging that security guards assaulted an intoxicated patron.

The patron and his friends testified that he was beaten by security guards in the staff kitchen and kicked while being thrown out.

The security guards testified that the patron was involved in a fight, bit a guard, and was later kicked by another patron while being restrained.

The Tribunal found the patron and his friends' evidence unreliable due to severe intoxication and accepted the security guards' testimony.

The Tribunal concluded that the patron was not assaulted by representatives of the licence holder and invited submissions on the appropriate sanction.

The applicants sought an order quashing and permanently prohibiting a disciplinary proceeding against them before the Discipline Committee of the Professional Engineers of Ontario, alleging a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The Divisional Court found that the tribunal's administrative staff had inappropriately interfered in the scheduling process, demanded evidence for adjournments, and usurped the role of the Chair.

The Chair was found complicit in this conduct and interfered with the independence of a panel member who had ruled against the staff's request to be added as a party.

The court concluded that a reasonable apprehension of bias was established and permanently stayed the disciplinary proceedings.

The applicant applied for an additional outdoor licensed area for its pub and deli.

The Registrar issued a Notice of Proposal to review the application due to written objections from local residents.

At the hearing, the parties and the resident objectors submitted Minutes of Settlement.

The Board approved the application for an outdoor area of 47 persons, subject to conditions including restrictions on music and hours of service, as agreed upon in the settlement.

The Board of Trustees appealed a decision of the Licence Appeal Tribunal that reversed the Board's refusal of the respondents' claim for compensation regarding a stolen vehicle.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Tribunal's factual findings were supported by the evidence and that the Tribunal correctly addressed the issue of willful blindness without improperly shifting the onus to the Board.

The respondent's registration as a motor vehicle dealer and salesman was revoked due to odometer tampering.

He later re-applied for registration, but the Registrar proposed to refuse the application based on his past misconduct, including criminal fraud convictions.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal restored his registration, accepting his argument that the fraud was due to bad paperwork and a dishonest employee.

The Registrar appealed.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the Tribunal erred fundamentally by allowing the respondent to relitigate the essential element of criminal intent from his fraud convictions.

The Tribunal's decision was set aside and the Registrar's proposal to refuse registration was restored.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Licence Appeal Tribunal directing the Registrar to revoke his registration as a motor vehicle dealer.

The revocation was based on the appellant's failure to disclose a criminal record, failure to disclose an outstanding judgment, and selling a vehicle without properly disclosing the correct odometer reading.

The Divisional Court found clear and cogent evidence that the appellant breached his registration conditions, allowed an unregistered salesperson to sell a car, and submitted a fraudulent bill of sale to deceive the Tribunal.

The appeal was dismissed and the revocation upheld.

The Registrar appealed a tribunal decision regarding the registration of a motor vehicle dealer.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the Vice-Chair erred in law by failing to address the respondent's significant debt and financial responsibility under s. 5(1)(a) of the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act.

The court also noted inconsistencies in the Vice-Chair's findings of fact regarding the respondent's interest in a numbered company.

The matter was remitted to a differently constituted tribunal for a new hearing.

The appellant motor vehicle dealer sought to introduce fresh evidence on appeal regarding actual damage to vehicles.

The Divisional Court rejected the proposed evidence, applying the Sengmueller test.

The court found the evidence was not relevant to the core issue of non-disclosure of acquisition documents, was readily available at the time of the original hearing, and would not have affected the tribunal's result.