Elizabeth Maishlish

The Registrar brought a motion to remove the appellant's unlicensed representative, Abhinav Yadav, from acting in an appeal regarding a proposal to revoke a cannabis retail operator licence.

The Tribunal found that Yadav's potential dual role as a material witness and advocate would impair the administration of justice.

Furthermore, Yadav had a personal and financial interest in the litigation as the intimate partner of a director of the appellant corporation, meaning he did not qualify for the Law Society's exemption for unlicensed family members providing uncompensated legal services.

The motion was granted and Yadav was removed as representative.

Owners appealed decisions scratching their horses from Ontario Sires Stakes Gold Super Finals after their trainer was fully suspended.

They sought reallocation and redistribution of purse monies to obtain the 1% amount described as a guaranteed starting fee.

The panel held it is a statutory body with no inherent jurisdiction and found nothing in the governing statute or racing rules authorizing that remedy.

Because the horses did not start or finish in the races, the panel also held the applicable rules for the 1% payment were not met.

The appeals were dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

In a regulatory costs motion arising from appeals concerning horses scratched from scheduled races after a trainer's suspension, the moving parties sought costs on the basis that the regulator had acted unreasonably in bringing a prior motion to dismiss without a hearing.

The Panel held that the threshold for unreasonable conduct under Rule 13.1 is high and that costs should only be awarded in exceptional circumstances, including patently unreasonable conduct or conduct that is frivolous, vexatious, or in bad faith.

Because the regulator had been partially successful on the underlying motion and reasonably advanced a jurisdictional position on the remaining remedy issue, the conduct complained of did not meet that threshold.

The motion for costs was dismissed.

The appellant appealed the Registrar's proposal to refuse to renew his horseperson licence under the Horse Racing Licence Act, 2015.

The Registrar based its proposal on the appellant's past conduct, which included recent criminal convictions for publishing an intimate image without consent, peace bonds for assault and criminal harassment, numerous workplace security incidents, and an altercation at the Steward's office.

The Tribunal found that the recency and seriousness of the criminal charges, combined with the appellant's ongoing probation and peace bonds, established reasonable grounds to believe he would not act with honesty, integrity, and in the public interest.

The Tribunal confirmed the Registrar's proposal to refuse the licence renewal.

The applicant appealed a Notice of Proposal to refuse the transfer of a liquor licence.

The Registrar argued the applicant made false statements on the application by failing to disclose past criminal charges and Highway Traffic Act convictions, and that his past conduct, including a recent conviction for drug trafficking, afforded reasonable grounds to believe he would not carry on business with honesty and integrity.

The Tribunal found the applicant did not knowingly make false statements, as he acted in good faith and misunderstood the disclosure requirements.

However, the Tribunal upheld the refusal to transfer the licence, finding that the applicant's recent serious criminal conviction and ongoing parole status demonstrated a sufficient nexus to his ability to carry on business in accordance with the law.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Proposal to revoke his liquor licence.

The Registrar issued the notice after multiple unannounced inspections revealed the appellant repeatedly violated the conditions of his licence by failing to provide video surveillance footage and allowing a prohibited person to be present and work at the premises.

Despite an Agreed Order of Monetary Penalty and an education session, the violations continued.

The Tribunal found reasonable grounds to believe the appellant would not carry on business in accordance with the law and with integrity and honesty.

The appeal was dismissed, and the Registrar was directed to carry out the revocation.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Proposal to revoke its liquor licence.

Prior to the hearing, the appellant's licence expired and the registrar withdrew the Notice of Proposal.

The appellant failed to attend the videoconference hearing.

The registrar moved to dismiss the appeal on the grounds of jurisdiction and mootness.

The Tribunal found it retained jurisdiction despite the expired licence, but dismissed the appeal as moot because the withdrawal of the Notice of Proposal meant a decision would have no practical effect, and declined to exercise its discretion to hear the moot appeal.

The Registrar proposed to revoke the cannabis retail operator licence of Havok Global Limited and the cannabis retail manager licence of Dr. Gerald Goldlist, alleging past conduct issues involving Dr. Goldlist and his son, Michael.

The Tribunal found no reasonable grounds to believe Dr. Goldlist would not act in accordance with the law, integrity, or the public interest, noting his 45-year unblemished career as a physician and accepting his explanation regarding a 2018 break-in at an illegal dispensary.

The Tribunal also found that Michael was not an 'interested person' in Havok, as he had no beneficial interest, control, or financing role in the business.

The notices of proposal to revoke the licences were set aside.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Proposal to refuse his application for a cannabis retail manager licence.

The Registrar argued the appellant was ineligible due to past conduct, including involvement in an illegal dispensary, a prior conviction for possession for the purpose of trafficking, and outstanding civil litigation involving allegations of bad faith.

The Tribunal found that while the appellant did not intentionally mislead the Registrar on his application, his concerning conduct regarding the illegal dispensary and the serious allegations in the ongoing civil litigation provided reasonable grounds to believe he would not act with honesty, integrity, or in the public interest.

The proposal to refuse the licence was confirmed.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Proposal by the Registrar to refuse the transfer of a liquor licence for a restaurant.

The refusal was based on the past and present conduct of the appellant's sole officer and director, which included a dated criminal record, a recent conviction for driving without a licence, lack of candour during the application process, and selling alcohol after the transfer was refused.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the officer's conduct afforded reasonable grounds for belief that the business would not be carried on in accordance with the law and with integrity and honesty.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to carry out the proposal to refuse the transfer.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Proposal to Revoke his licence as an owner and trainer of Standardbred horses.

The Registrar proposed revocation based on the appellant's extensive criminal and driving record, including convictions for assault, forgery, and driving while suspended, as well as his failure to disclose these convictions on his licence applications.

The Tribunal found clear and compelling evidence that the appellant's past conduct demonstrated a pattern of disregard for the law, providing reasonable grounds to believe he would not act with integrity, honesty, or in the public interest.

The appeal was dismissed and the licence was revoked.

The appellant appealed a proposal to refuse to issue him a licence as an owner and trainer of Standardbred horses.

The Registrar refused the licence based on the appellant's failure to disclose his extensive disciplinary history on his application and his participation in a hidden ownership scheme while unlicenced.

The appellant argued his past conduct was caused by cognitive impairments and schizophrenia, which were now being managed.

The Tribunal found reasonable grounds to believe the appellant would not act with integrity or honesty, noting a lack of independent evidence showing sufficient improvement in his cognitive abilities to adhere to the strict regulations of the horse racing industry.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to carry out the proposal to refuse the licence.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Proposal by the Registrar to refuse an application for a liquor sales licence.

The Registrar alleged that the appellant was acting as a front for his father, whose past conduct, including a criminal conviction and improper use of special occasion permits, afforded reasonable grounds for belief that the business would not be carried on in accordance with the law and with integrity and honesty.

The Registrar also alleged that the father made false statements by failing to disclose his criminal conviction on the Personal Disclosure Form.

The Tribunal found that the father was the true owner of the business and that his past conduct and false statements justified the refusal.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to carry out the Notice of Proposal to refuse the application.

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 appellant requested a hearing to address the Registrar's Notice of Proposal to revoke and an Order to immediately suspend its Crematorium Operator Licence.

At the initial teleconference hearing, the parties consented to extend the immediate suspension order until the conclusion of the hearing and discussed procedural matters.

The respondent argued that the Vice Chair who presided over the first day was seized of the matter and must continue as chair.

The Tribunal held that the Vice Chair was not seized of the appeal because no substantive evidence was presented and no substantive rulings were made that would impact the merits of the appeal.

The Tribunal issued a case management order setting dates for the continuation of the hearing and the exchange of documents.

The Registrar proposed to revoke the appellant's Funeral Director Class 1 licence and refuse a corporate application for a Funeral Establishment Operator Class 2 licence.

The proposals stemmed from an incident where the appellant transferred an infant's remains from a hospital morgue to a crematorium in a re-purposed cardboard box, and allegations of improper pacemaker removal without protective equipment.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the appellant's conduct fell significantly below professional standards, demonstrating incompetence and unprofessional conduct.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to carry out both proposals, concluding the appellant's past conduct afforded reasonable grounds for belief that he would not carry on business in accordance with the law and with integrity and honesty.

The appellant requested a hearing regarding the Registrar's proposal to revoke and immediately suspend its Transfer Service Operator – Class 1 licence.

At a teleconference hearing, the parties agreed to adjourn the matter to allow for document exchange and a case conference.

On consent, the Tribunal ordered that the immediate suspension of the appellant's licence be extended until the conclusion of the hearing, pursuant to section 19(3)(b) of the Funeral, Burial and Cremation Services Act, 2002.

Procedural directions and dates for the continuation of the hearing were also set.

The Appellants, motor vehicle dealers facing registration revocation, moved to adjourn their hearing before the Licence Appeal Tribunal.

They sought the adjournment to pursue an application for judicial review of an earlier interlocutory order regarding disclosure.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the Appellants failed to demonstrate irreparable harm if the hearing proceeded.

The Tribunal concluded that the public interest in the timely regulation of motor vehicle trades and the potential prejudice to the Registrar's consumer witnesses outweighed any prejudice to the Appellants.

The appellants, motor vehicle dealers facing registration revocation, brought a motion for disclosure of completed and ongoing investigations by the Ontario Motor Vehicle Industry Council (OMVIC).

The Licence Appeal Tribunal ordered the Registrar to disclose all relevant information from completed investigations, regardless of format.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the request for disclosure of ongoing investigations, finding that such information is protected by public interest privilege and the appellants failed to establish that the information sought went to the root of their defence.

The Director of the MVDA was denied party status but granted intervener status on the motion.

The Appellant appealed a Notice of Proposal by the Registrar to refuse his registration as a motor vehicle salesperson.

The refusal was based on the Appellant's failure to disclose his recent criminal convictions, including assault causing bodily harm, impaired driving, and possession of a firearm contrary to a prohibition order, on his application.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the Appellant made false statements and serious omissions on his application, which afforded reasonable grounds to believe he would not carry on business in accordance with the law and with integrity and honesty.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to carry out the proposal to refuse registration.