Chen v. Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario, 2019 ONSC 1680

SWINTON J. (Orally)

1The applicant seeks judicial review of a decision of the Registrar, Alcohol and Gaming Commission dated January 15, 2018 refusing to revoke a Direction to Exclude the applicant from all Ontario gaming sites dated December 1, 2010.

2The Direction to Exclude was imposed because the Board of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission found that the applicant was loaning large amounts of money at criminal rates of interest, and she was an active participant in loan sharking. In its view, loan sharking would adversely affect public confidence in gaming and casino operations. The Commission was also concerned about an altercation between the applicant and a person to whom she had loaned money.

3In 2017, the applicant requested the revocation of the Direction, which stated, in accordance with s. 25 of O. Reg. 78/12 under the Gaming Control Act, 1992, S.O. 1992, c.24, that she could request revocation after five years. However, she must satisfy the Registrar that she has shown cause why the Direction should be revoked.

4The Registrar considered the material she supplied, and found there was not sufficient cause for revocation of the Direction. The Registrar stated:

Based on the decision of the Board and the findings of a panel of the Board, which have not been put in doubt, the reasons advanced in your correspondence, supported by the material provided are not sufficient cause for revocation of the direction. Specifically, the passage of seven years; a desire for Ms. Chen to put the past behind her; stable employment; a familial relationship; an enjoyment of casino gambling; feelings of humiliation at exclusion from gaming sites; and the lack of a criminal record are not, in light of the Board’s previous findings, sufficient cause for the revocation of the Direction.

5In the applicant’s factum, but not today at the hearing, the applicant alleged she was denied procedural fairness. There is no merit to this argument. She was given the opportunity to provide the Registrar with information and argument in support of her position, and she received adequate reasons to explain why the Registrar refused her request.

6The Registrar’s decision was reasonable, given the gravity of the past conduct and the applicant’s failure to provide adequate information showing she appreciated the gravity of the past conduct and demonstrated there was not a risk of reoccurrence. In the revocation decision, the Board stated:

The Board is satisfied that Ms. Chen acted in a way that would adversely affect public confidence that games of chance and casino operations in general are free from criminal or corrupt elements and are conducted in accordance with the principles of honesty and integrity.

The Registrar reasonably concluded that the material before him did not show cause to conclude that the concerns of the Board about loan sharking were no longer an issue.

7Accordingly, the application for judicial review is dismissed.

8I have endorsed the Application Record as follows: “This application is dismissed for oral reason delivered today. Costs to the respondent fixed at $3,500.00 all in.”

___________________________ SWINTON J.

I agree