Faye Kidman

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 a proposal to refuse him a cannabis retail manager licence due to a prior conviction for selling cannabis without authorization.

He brought a motion challenging the constitutionality of section 5(4)2 of the Cannabis Licence Act, 2018, arguing it violated sections 7, 11, and 12 of the Charter.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the Charter provisions do not protect pure economic interests or apply to administrative licence refusals.

The Tribunal also rejected the appellant's argument that a facial error on his summons negated his conviction, ruling it an impermissible collateral attack.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Proposal by the Registrar to refuse the renewal of its liquor licence.

The proposal was based on the appellant's failure to pay a $12,000 Order for Monetary Penalty issued in 2018 for serving underage patrons.

The Tribunal found that the appellant's failure to pay the penalty demonstrated financial irresponsibility and provided reasonable grounds to believe the business would not be carried on in accordance with the law and with integrity and honesty.

The appeal was dismissed and the Registrar was directed to carry out the proposal to refuse the licence renewal.

The appellant applied for a cannabis retail manager licence.

The Registrar issued a Notice of Proposal to refuse the application.

The appellant failed to request a hearing within the required 15-day period and subsequently filed a motion to extend the time to appeal, over 125 days late.

The Tribunal applied the four-factor test from Manuel and found that the appellant lacked a bona fide intention to appeal within the time limit, the delay was significant without reasonable explanation, and the appeal had little likelihood of success.

The motion for an extension of time was dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review of the AGCO's decision refusing a retail sales authorization for a cannabis store.

The AGCO rejected the application because the proposed location was within 150 metres of a school, measured using a straight-line method.

The applicant argued the distance should be measured by the shortest publicly available walking route.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the AGCO's straight-line measurement method was a reasonable interpretation of the Cannabis Licence Act and its regulations, and that the method was sufficiently transparent to the public.

The appellant appealed the Registrar's proposal to refuse his application for a cannabis retail operator licence.

The Registrar refused the application on the grounds that the appellant failed to disclose his full criminal history, including multiple impaired driving convictions, on his application and during subsequent interviews.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal confirmed the Registrar's proposal, finding that the appellant knowingly made false statements and that his conduct provided reasonable grounds to believe he would not carry on business in accordance with the law, honesty, or integrity.

The Tribunal also found that conditions were not appropriate to facilitate registration.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Proposal by the Registrar to refuse to renew its liquor licence.

The Registrar alleged the appellant was operating an illegal cannabis dispensary, contrary to s. 6(2)(d) of the Liquor Licence Act.

The Tribunal found that the appellant had ceased operating its licensed business and rented the premises to an unauthorized cannabis retailer, failing to inform the Registrar or surrender its licence as required by s. 56 of Regulation 719/90.

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

The applicant appealed a Notice of Proposal to Refuse Registration as a Gaming Supplier (Seller) under the Gaming Control Act, 1992.

The Registrar proposed refusal based on the applicant's 2011 conviction for fraud over $5,000 against her former employer, which involved a sophisticated scheme and breach of trust.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's past conduct provided reasonable grounds to believe she would not act with integrity, honesty, or in the public interest as a lottery ticket seller.

The Tribunal ordered the Registrar to carry out the proposal to refuse the application.

The Registrar of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario appealed a decision of the Licence Appeal Tribunal setting aside a Notice of Proposed Order to revoke the respondent's horse racing licence.

The Registrar had proposed revocation after discovering the respondent's criminal convictions for selling regulated chemicals and his failure to accurately disclose them on his renewal application.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the issues raised by the Registrar were questions of mixed fact and law, which are not appealable under the governing statute.

The Court also held that the Tribunal's decision was reasonable and within the range of acceptable outcomes based on the evidence.

The Registrar issued a proposal to suspend the Appellant's liquor licence for 30 days for permitting drunkenness and failing to clear signs of alcohol consumption.

The Appellant conceded the failure to clear signs of alcohol but appealed the allegation of permitting drunkenness.

The Tribunal found that a patron was in an advanced state of intoxication in a karaoke room, and that the Appellant's staff ought to have known of her condition before an inspector brought it to their attention.

The Tribunal concluded the Appellant contravened section 45(1) of Regulation 719/90 and directed the parties to provide written submissions on penalty.

The Registrar requested a reconsideration of the Tribunal's decisions which suspended, rather than revoked, the appellants' liquor licences for breaching conditions restricting the involvement of the owner's son.

The Registrar argued the Tribunal misapprehended the 'reasonable grounds for belief' test under s. 6(2)(d) of the Liquor Licence Act and made significant errors of law and fact.

The Associate Chair found no significant errors of law or fact in the Tribunal's conclusion that the past conduct did not afford reasonable grounds for belief that the business would not be carried on with integrity and honesty.

The reconsideration request was dismissed and the previous decisions were confirmed.

The applicant, an Official Veterinarian, sought judicial review of a decision by the Horse Racing Appeal Panel which found it lacked jurisdiction to hear her appeal of the Registrar's decision to rescind her approval.

The Divisional Court allowed the application, finding the Panel's decision unreasonable because it failed to consider Rule 24.01 of the Rules of Standardbred Racing, which explicitly provides a right of appeal to the Panel for any person aggrieved by a decision of the Registrar.

The matter was remitted to a differently constituted panel.

The appellant appealed an Order of Monetary Penalty imposing two $1,500 penalties for alleged violations of the Liquor Licence Act regulations.

The Registrar alleged that the appellant served liquor outside prescribed hours and failed to clear signs of service within 45 minutes of the end of the service period.

The Tribunal found the inspector's evidence credible and concluded that the appellant had served a drink after 2:00 a.m.

The appellant admitted to failing to clear signs of service.

The Tribunal found both violations proven and ordered the parties to proceed with submissions on the appellant's constitutional question regarding settlement negotiations.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Registrar of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission refusing to revoke a Direction to Exclude her from all Ontario gaming sites.

The exclusion was originally imposed due to findings that the applicant was involved in loan sharking at criminal rates of interest.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Registrar's decision reasonable given the gravity of the past conduct and the applicant's failure to demonstrate she appreciated the gravity of her actions or that there was no risk of reoccurrence.

The appellant appealed an order of the Registrar imposing a $3,000 monetary penalty for permitting patrons to pour spirits directly from bottles into their mouths, allegedly encouraging immoderate consumption.

The Tribunal found that while the appellant permitted the practice, it only encourages immoderate consumption if the bottles lack limiting pour spouts.

Because the Registrar failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that the bottles lacked limiting pour spouts, the contravention was not established and the penalty was set aside.

The appellant appealed an order of the Licence Appeal Tribunal directing the revocation of its liquor licence.

The revocation was based on findings that the appellant permitted a patron to remove alcohol, permitted unlawful gambling, and that the manager obstructed and assaulted an inspector.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error of law in the Tribunal's assessment of the evidence or its application of the test under s. 6(2)(d) of the Liquor Licence Act.

The appellant, Monarch Tavern Inc., applied to the Registrar of Alcohol, Gaming and Racing for an additional licensed area to operate an outdoor patio.

Following objections from local residents, the Registrar issued a proposal to review the application, and the appellant requested a hearing before the Licence Appeal Tribunal.

The added party opposed the application, arguing that the patio would exacerbate existing traffic congestion, loitering, and littering in the predominantly residential neighbourhood.

The Tribunal found that the added party failed to establish that the licence was not in the public interest, noting that the City of Toronto had already issued a boulevard café permit with strict conditions addressing the residents' concerns, including a maximum capacity of 12 patrons and a 9:00 p.m. closing time.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to approve the application without imposing additional conditions.

The appellant requested reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal motion decision that found the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to consider the appellant's arguments regarding the Registrar's conduct during settlement negotiations.

The appellant had argued that the Registrar's insistence on an 'all-or-nothing' settlement for two alleged liquor licence violations was an abuse of process and violated the Charter.

The Executive Chair granted the reconsideration request, finding that the Tribunal erred in law by concluding it lacked jurisdiction to consider the Registrar's conduct when determining whether to confirm or set aside a monetary penalty under the Alcohol and Gaming Regulation and Public Protection Act.

The Tribunal's order was varied to allow the appellant to make written submissions on these issues if the regulatory violations are proven at the hearing.

The appellant distillery applied for a liquor licence for its premises and an adjoining patio.

The Registrar issued a Notice of Proposal to review the application after receiving objections from local residents regarding past zoning and fire safety compliance, as well as concerns about noise and neighbourhood character.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found no persuasive evidence that the appellant's past conduct disentitled it to a licence or that the operation was inconsistent with the neighbourhood's character.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to approve the licence, subject to conditions limiting the patio's capacity, restricting its hours of operation, and prohibiting amplified music.