Licence Tribunal
Appeal d'appel en
Tribunal matière de permis
DATE:
2012-07-19
FILE:
7381/GCA
CASE NAME:
7381 v. Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming
Appeal from an Order of Immediate Suspension issued by the Registrar under the Gaming Control Act, 1992, S.O. 1992 c. 24 -
Applicant
Applicant
-and-
Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming
Respondent
DECISION AND ORDER
ADJUDICATOR:
Simon Dann, Member
APPEARANCES:
For the Applicant:
H. A. Patrick Little, Counsel
For the Respondent:
Rena Khan, Counsel
Heard in Welland
May 24, 2012
DECISION AND ORDER
BACKGROUND
The Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming (the “Registrar”) under the Gaming Control Act, 1992, (the “Act”)Sections 14(1) and 13 issued an Order of Immediate Suspension (“the Order”), dated April 23, 2012, as it was considered to be necessary in the public interest and for the reasons detailed in the Order. The Applicant/LB appealed the Order to the Licence Appeal Tribunal.
As a preliminary matter, there was a request for an order to exclude witnesses and this was granted.
Ms. Khan, Counsel for the Respondent, stated that the immediate suspension of the Applicant’s registration was due to the criminal charges against him and that she was asking the Tribunal to uphold the suspension order.
Mr. Little, Counsel for the Applicant, reviewed the reasons for appeal and particularly that the workplace complaint against LB was subsequently found to be groundless.
Mr. Little acknowledged that while there were also criminal charges against LB, he intended to show that those charges were also groundless and that LB did not pose any threat to the public interest and the suspension order should be lifted.
REGISTRAR’S EVIDENCE
Frank Alma (“Alma”) is a police officer with the Niagara Regional Police Force (“NRPF”). He has been a member of the NRPF for 7 years and was the investigating officer who met with the complainant (“EL”) in March 2012. Alma referred to his notes in giving his testimony.
Alma described EL as seeming nervous when she spoke about her relationship with LB. She said it began in October 2010 and she described how it deteriorated. She told Alma that when they were separated, LB would re-contact her and they would get back together again.
Alma said EL claimed there were jealousy issues and while they had arguments they were not physical. EL told him that on one occasion LB hid her car keys until she agreed to talk with him.
According to Alma, EL contacted police again and claimed LB had climbed up to her 3rd floor balcony and watched her.
According to EL, at the end of her relationship with LB, on February 11, 2012, LB came to her apartment. They had a series of arguments. EL claimed LB pushed her as he was taking back various items he had purchased for her. When she protested, he allegedly pushed her and then hit her on the eye. Alma said he saw a photo of EL’s eye injury and that it appeared to him to be swollen with redness. EL told him she could not go to work that night. Though she then laid an assault charge, she got back together with him three days later.
Alma said this was apparently followed by another argument after which EL texted the Applicant to tell him the relationship was finished. In March, they were together again though EL considered the relationship to be over.
EL and LB had another argument on March 11th,, when there was damage to a wall in EL’s home which was allegedly caused by a thrown air freshener. EL told Alma that she believed LB had climbed up to her balcony based on her once seeing him having a cigarette on the balcony. She also saw him watching her in the parking lot at work.
Alma said that during his interview of EL, LB tried to contact EL with 10 phone calls and multiple text messages asking where she was. Alma said he has one note of 37 text messages from LB to EL. Alma was also told that LB left a note on her vehicle.
At this point, Alma said he believed LB’s actions were becoming unpredictable and he asked him to come to the police station where he was then arrested. LB explained that he and EL worked in the same place and he was watching out for her safety as he believed she could hurt herself. Alma said LB referred to himself as an avid rock climber and climbing to her 3rd floor balcony was easy.
A first floor tenant in EL’s apartment building (“JW”) was disturbed by her dog’s barking and reportedly saw the Applicant at 3:10 AM (on February 28, 2012) getting out of his vehicle and walking towards the building.
Alma determined there was enough grounds to lay assault charges as a result of EL’s eye injury and a criminal harassment charge due to LB’s encounters with EL at her home, workplace and the number of text messages LB had sent to her.
After LB was arrested, he was released, on his own recognizance, with terms which required him to abide by a curfew, to only leave his residence for employment and not to have any contact with EL.
Alma said LB was seen outside of EL’s apartment building, at 4:30 AM, on March 13, 2012, by the first floor tenant, who reportedly claimed there was enough light to recognize the Applicant.
Alma contacted the Casino to ask about the times at which LB had clocked in and out from work. LB was seen on a casino camera wearing a black jacket as had been described by the tenant.
When Alma spoke with EL that morning, she sounded scared as she felt LB was ignoring the court order to stay away from her and she claimed that even the police could not do anything for her.
On March 14, Alma received the video and clock records from the Casino OPP and determined that it was possible for LB to have arrived at EL’s apartment building. Alma then arrested LB for breach of recognizance. During the interview that followed, LB denied having been at EL’s that night because he was at Tim Horton’s where he had stopped for tea after work.
Alma said LB breached the condition by sending text messages to EL, but he did not investigate that breach further.
In cross-examination, the Tribunal heard another constable had laid the charge dealing with the text messages LB had sent (another charge of breach of his recognizance conditions). Alma acknowledged that he spoke with LB at that time and found LB to be cooperative and sincere, but it was not his role to make any decisions.
Alma said LB was released after his arrest on this breach of recognizance charge. There were no additional terms or conditions added to his recognizance. The NRPF database showed that EL had some minor occurrence reports between herself and LB, with police attendance but he had no recall of when those events may have been.
Alma confirmed he had never spoken or met with EL prior to this situation. EL had told him of her complaint about LB at the Casino but he did not know the outcome of that complaint. Alma also said that on March 11, 2012, EL said she had considered the relationship over. On that occasion, there was no assault issue and EL told Alma she just wanted LB to leave her alone.
Alma agreed there seemed to be a pattern of breaking up and getting together again between EL and LB.
The Tribunal was also told of the zero-tolerance provincial mandate which makes it mandatory for police and prosecutors to investigate and prosecute every allegation and call of domestic abuse. Based on this policy, the police are under strict directives to lay charges as soon as someone tells them they were assaulted or threatened while in a domestic relationship, even in the face of an uncorroborated complaint. Alma indicated that “I have no choice”.
About the bruised eye, Alma acknowledged he did not have a photo of it. EL told him how LB had a bag of things which she did not want him to take away. The two of them then started pulling and pushing each other and that was when the injury to EL’s eye occurred.
While Alma’s report was that LB struck EL, Alma stated in cross examination that he was not there and agreed that anything, such as EL falling and accidentally hitting furniture was possible. Alma agreed EL bit the Applicant’s thumb so they were likely fighting. Neither EL or LB went to the hospital to have their complaints examined.
Alma confirmed his understanding that EL and LB gave each other back their respective keys and there was no statement by EL that LB had made any threats against her.
On re-examination, Alma said he believed he had sufficient grounds for the charges to arrest LB. He also confirmed the text message which led to the second breach charge was something like “Is this what you really want?”
James Renwick (“Renwick”) has been an investigator with the AGCO since 2000. His previous position was as a staff sergeant manager with the Ontario Provincial Police. His role in this matter was to conduct an investigation and submit a report on his findings. He referred to his notes to assist him with his testimony.
Renwick received information about the criminal charges filed against the Applicant on March 21, 2012 and was assigned to review the circumstances.
His investigation revealed LB and EL had been involved in a relationship for about 14 months prior to the events leading to the charges. He learned the relationship had numerous interruptions and that in February 2012, EL had initiated a complaint.
Renwick said LB continued his casino employment during the investigation period. When Renwick interviewed LB on April 12, 2012, LB told him that the information provided by EL was inaccurate and that she had inflicted the injury on herself when she blocked his exit. Renwick was told that LB put his hand on her right shoulder and that was when she fell and injured her eye with her left elbow.
When he spoke to EL, she told him she and LB had become physical during the course of the argument.
Renwick learned that in November 2002,LB was charged with assault at Saugeen Shores as a result of a disagreement with his girlfriend at the time. The criminal charge was withdrawn by the Crown as LB entered into a one year peace bond. While LB had not voluntarily disclosed this information, he admitted it when presented with details of the incident.
Renwick said that his investigation at the Casino revealed the Applicant was a reliable employee and that a complaint by EL to Casino management was found to be groundless.
Jeff Longhurst (“Longhurst”) is a senior manager in AGCO licensing and registration and has been with the AGCO since 1994. He oversees the registration of gaming staff and is familiar with LB’s file. He confirmed there was an internal review of the criminal charges against LB and this led to the recommendation for immediate suspension.
The Act requires that registrants conduct themselves with honesty, integrity and in the public interest and in accordance with the law. When criminal charges are laid against a registrant, it brings into question the registrant’s ability to meet the required standards. The fact there are five criminal charges before the courts jeopardizes a registrant’s work in a casino whether the threat to the public interest is real or perceived.
In cross-examination, Longhurst said he was not aware of any issues about LB’s honesty and integrity over the 15 years he had been employed by the Casino. Longhurst said he had accepted the Niagara Regional Police reports at face value.
Longhurst believes that when someone is charged there is an issue of integrity as it pertains to putting another person at risk. He also considered the Casino’s decision to have EL and LB work in separate areas as “appropriate”.
Longhurst does not believe it is in the public interest to allow a person with charges to work in a casino until they have been dealt with by the court. He was familiar with LB’s 2002 convictions and said that terms and conditions had been imposed for 4 yrs, which LB had fully complied with.
APPLICANT’S EVIDENCE
Shannon Dutton (“Dutton”) is employed as a director of table games with Niagara Casino and Fallsview Casino. She has been with the casinos since 1996 and in her current position for two years. She is familiar with both EL and LB.
Dutton said EL first approached her table game shift manager on March 3, 2012 to complain of harassment and fear for her life. EL then brought the complaint to Human Relations.
EL’s shift manager was unable to clearly understand EL’s complaint and asked her to write a report. As it was EL’s first complaint, it was suggested she take it to the police. Dutton also provided Renwick with a copy of EL’s handwritten letter.
Dutton said that she and another casino employee viewed hours of surveillance tapes to observe LB’s conduct the night of EL’s complaint and they did not see any deviation from his attention to work. She said that EL and LB worked directly across from each other and it was not until 3:00AM that she saw (on the surveillance tape) LB go to EL’s table and speak to her. Dutton said LB stood there quietly waiting for EL to complete her conversation with a supervisor after which LB was seen to lean towards EL to say some words and then leave. LB reportedly said, “Thanks for making my night miserable”.
Dutton said she also spoke to two supervisors who were there at the time and neither one saw or heard anything to report.
The statement by EL that there were players at her table when the Applicant came over to speak to her was not supported by the surveillance tapes which showed no players present. Dutton said EL also complained LB had punched her during toke collection (there are usually 2 people who do the collection of tips – which is referred to as the ‘toke’ collection). Dutton said she questioned the other person who was with LB to find out if LB had done anything physical to EL. The other person said no, but LB had said something inappropriate (which was the previous remark about “making my night miserable”).
Dutton interviewed EL and advised her there was no evidence to support the “punch” claim. EL described feeling a brush or a shiver saying that it was like when “you know someone doesn’t like you”. EL described the shiver as feeling like a punch.
At the beginning of the interview, EL said she had a fear for her life and later ended by saying that it was ok for LB to work at the Casino but she did not want him to talk to her. Dutton said EL understood there was no evidence to support her harassment complaint.
When EL was asked if she understood the severity of her charges and that she would have to testify, EL told Dutton the police had said she would not have to testify.
Dutton said it was well known that EL and LB had a volatile relationship and had broken up “at least 50 times” and then gotten together again.
Dutton said LB’s job performance was consistently above average.
In cross-examination, Dutton confirmed the complaint had been investigated under the workplace harassment and discrimination policy as well as by corporate investigators. She confirmed she had reviewed surveillance tapes with the table games manager and interviewed the co-toke collection person the night of EL’s complaint about the punch.
Dutton said that LB’s toke collection ‘partner’ told her LB had not punched or touched EL as she was there with him and would have seen if LB had done anything physical to EL. She also spoke to the pit manager who confirmed that LB had come over and said something short to EL and then left. The pit manager said he did not see anything unusual. The supervisor who was also in the pit beside EL told Dutton that he did not hear anything.
Dutton said there could be language issues for EL as English is not her first language and while she has a good vocabulary, she sometimes misuses words. That was why she discussed the hit with EL and whether it was actually a touch or a shiver.
Dutton did not follow up on the stalking claim as it was outside of the casino and that would before the police. She confirmed LB agreed he had made the “thanks for making my night miserable” statement to EL but also claimed he had not touched her.
The Applicant’s mother (“CB”) said her son has his own apartment but he was now living with her based on the recognizance conditions. She said she had known EL from the time her son started dating her and that EL had been to her house many times.
It was her observation that EL and her son had a “very turbulent” relationship with many break-ups. CB said there was supposed to be a Valentine’s Day dinner with EL and her son but EL had said she wouldn’t come because she was fearful. When she asked EL what she was fearful about, EL told CB that it was about “counselling”.
CB said she asked EL if her son had ever hit her and EL replied no, he had not. EL then said she thought it would not be happy for her if she came and she only wanted to be happy. The next weekend, the two were together again.
CB was not aware of the alleged physical confrontation on February 11th.
In cross-examination, CB said she would see EL every couple of weeks, especially if there was an event. During their first conversation, EL told CB how happy she (EL) was and how she and LB were looking for an apartment together. EL also spoke about having children.
The Applicant (“LB”) stated he is 37 years old and currently living with his mother even though he has his own apartment. He was first hired by the Casino in 1996 as a valet driver and received his registration to work at the gaming tables in 1998. He is a member of the toke committee and co-chairman, responsible for all tip collections. He is elected to this position by the over 900 dealers at the Casino.
Since being suspended, he has not been able to do anything though he does speak to his toke co-chair on various issues, but otherwise has “nothing much” to do.
His relationship with EL began in August 2010 but did not get serious for some time as she had another man in her life. He helped her move in October and that was when they became “a couple”.
LB started noticing EL was in contact with a man from her past and then there was another man she spent time with at a Christmas party. He said this naturally caused some jealousy issues.
LB then gave a lengthy description of his often volatile relationship with EL and its many ups and downs He described the March 18th incident when he learned another man was with her, in her apartment.
He said he left, went home and then went out again and later saw her car at a local bar. This resulted in a note he left under her apartment door. He claimed the note read “I don’t know who’s in there with you but whoever it is, I hope he makes you happy”.
LB described an incident when he decided to leave EL’s apartment and began to pack his belongings as well as a number of things which he had purchased for her. This was followed by EL asking what he was taking and the “yanking” back and forth began. He acknowledged the push which resulted inled to EL’s fall and the resulting eye injury or black eye but stated he did not hit her. LB said the injury was the result of how EL fell and landed, hitting herself on her elbow.
He acknowledged his comment to her at work “thanks for making my night miserable”, but said there was nothing else.
Regarding the text message contact which led to the breach charge, LB said he was forwarding over 200 old text messages to himself when one accidentally went to EL from his smart phone touch screen. He described the proximity of the forward and resend buttons and that it was an accidental re-send.
LB said the reason there were so many text messages was because of the many times EL told him she needed to be alone for a few days. He would then give her “a few days” and come back. He said most of his texts were simply to ask EL if she was okay.
He confirmed his release is on the basis of a $25,000 surety bond, which was posted by his mother. He acknowledged the police had explained the zero-tolerance policy after his 2nd arrest.
In cross-examination, LB agreed it was a turbulent relationship and his collection of text messages from November to March, included 27 times when EL broke off with him.
LB said that though the relationship is now ended, EL has been contacting him through Facebook and unblocked him from Skype and other websites.
The last time the two were together outside of work was March 2 and 3, 2012. LB said they discussed moving in together and they talked about their plans for the apartment they had been looking at since he had learned it had become available.
Closing Submissions
Ms Khan asked that the suspension be upheld and referred to section 14(1) of the Act, submitting the issue was one of public interest, safety and the public perception of integrity in the gaming industry. She argued the witnesses gave credible testimony and the evidence should be accepted. Alma had said that notwithstanding the zero tolerance policy, he believed he had reasonable grounds to lay charges.
Ms Khan argued the Applicant’s testimony was not credible and that he has a history of domestic violence with assault charges laid against him by a former girlfriend (in 2002).The Applicant is now facing charges of one assault, two of harassment and two breaches of terms of release.
The Applicant’s explanation is that he did nothing wrong and the black eye was her own doing. He also wants the Tribunal to believe he accidentally sent the text and that it was not him at EL’s home on March 13th.
Ms Khan said consideration for public safety must be extended to EL as a member of the public. The pending charges are extremely serious from the Registrar’s perspective and more egregious is the breach of terms which showed disregard for the law. Employees who are registered with the AGCO must abide by the Act as well as the policies and procedures which flow from that Act. Once the charges are dealt with, the Registrar will come back to review the matter.
Mr Little submitted that the provincial zero tolerance policy effectively dictates that the police are required to lay charges. The mere laying of charges requires the Regulator to act on the point of integrity and therefore charges alone can result in the suspension. He argued the public interest and safety are not the purview of the Act but of the Criminal Code of Canada and it is the bail and recognizance which addresses the safety issue.
He argued that since the Applicant was readily released it was apparent that safety was not an issue. He also argued that the impact on the Applicant’s employment should be considered if the suspension is upheld until after the court process which, he suggested, might not be until 2013.
Mr Little asked the Tribunal to consider the absence of evidence from EL as well as EL’s failure to have their mutual employer deal with her complaint as the employer has a great interest in doing the right thing.
He submitted that Ms Dutton’s testimony was impressive as was the detail in which EL’s complaint, with uncorroborated testimony and lack of evidence, was investigated. Regarding the first breach, there were no other witnesses who claimed to have seen the Applicant in the parking lot except the tenant and she could be wrong.
He stated that the 2nd breach was an accident and should be seen from the perspective that two days earlier, EL had reconnected with the Applicant.
Regarding the issue of honesty and integrity, Mr Little argued that there had been nothing to show the Applicant was dishonest or that he had no integrity. The fact that charges have been laid against the Applicant is not conclusive that there will be a conviction. The suspension should be based on a much stronger case than what EL has claimed.
Ms Khan, in reply, pointed to De Sousa (Re), 2009 CanLII 47501 (ON AGC) para 117-124. She noted that while the facts are different in that case, the principles should also be taken into consideration in the Tribunal’s decision.
THE LAW
The relevant provisions of the Act are as follows:
Immediate suspension
- (1) The Registrar may by order suspend a registration without serving a proposed order under section 13 if he or she considers it to be necessary in the public interest. 1992, c. 24, s. 14 (1).
Effect of order
(2) The Registrar shall serve a copy of the order made together with written reasons for it on the registrant and it takes effect immediately on being served. 1992, c. 24, s. 14 (2).
Right to hearing
(3) Subsections 13 (2), (3), (5), (8), (9) and (10) apply to the order in the same way as to a proposed order under that section. 1992, c. 24, s. 14 (3); 1996, c. 26, s. 4 (14).
Expiry of order
(4) If the registrant requests a hearing, the order expires on the day the order of the Tribunal takes effect. 1992, c. 24, s. 14 (4); 2002, c. 18, Sched. E, s. 4 (6); 2011, c. 1, Sched. 1, s. 3 (11).
APPLICATION OF LAW TO FACTS
The issue in this matter is whether on the balance of probabilities, the suspension of the Applicant is in the public interest. The interpretation of the public interest, as submitted by the Registrar’s Counsel appears to suggest (i) the idea of the Applicant as posing a physical threat to the safety of the public, or EL as a member of the public, and (ii) the possible public perception that there is a potential threat to the integrity of the gaming industry because an employee in the industry has been criminally charged with assault and breach of his release conditions.
While this hearing is not the forum to determine the outcome of the criminal charges, as the matter of guilt or innocence is for the courts, the Tribunal is called upon to consider the evidence relating to the criminal charges.
The testimony of all the witnesses was carefully considered.
It seems that much of what was heard can be regarded as ‘he said/she said’ evidence. While Alma’s testimony is seen as straight-forward police reporting of information told to him by EL, there is also the influence of the province’s zero-tolerance mandate, and the casino’s finding of EL’s workplace harassment complaint, which cannot be ignored .
What has clearly been the most compelling evidence in this matter is the testimony provided by Shannon Dutton who was seen as a well-trained manager, methodical in her approach to her responsibilities. Dutton spoke about her knowledge of both EL and LB, testifying clearly about the results of her direct investigation of EL’s complaint at the casino and finding them groundless.
In terms of looking at the issue of the threat to public safety posed by LB, as suggested by the Registrar, and that there was a turbulent relationship as confirmed by all the witnesses, there is little to suggest that LB exhibited such behaviour generally. The Tribunal further notes that measures taken by the Casino to eliminate contact between LB and EL in the work setting have been effective.
Alma’s testimony that EL and LB gave each other back their respective keys, without any reported threat made by LB towards EL, at what presumably would have been a sensitive moment, was also noteworthy to the point of whether or not LB poses a threat to the safety of the public.
The testimony of the AGCO investigator confirmed the relationship between EL and LB was a turbulent one. Renwick also learned LB had been charged with assault following an argument with a former girlfriend in 2002. He said the criminal charge was withdrawn and replaced by a one year peace bond and while LB had not volunteered this information, he admitted it when confronted with it.
Overall, Renwick’s testimony conveyed a neutral sense about LB’s character and did not appear to suggest that LB posed a threat to the public or that he was someone without integrity.
Jeff Longhurst, a senior manager with the AGCO said he was familiar with the 2002 incident and that the four years of terms and conditions imposed on LB’s registration were fully complied with.
There was no evidence about the nature of the 2002 assault charge but what the Tribunal did hear was that the charges were withdrawn in favour of a peace bond and the Applicant then fully complied with terms and conditions which were imposed on his registration for a period of four years. Without any other information, we are left with these events in 2011 which are insufficient to conclude that LB is a probable threat to the public. His otherwise lawful and completely compliant conduct is influential to the Tribunal’s final conclusion and decision.
Returning to the evidence of Shannon Dutton, she had a very specific responsibility to thoroughly investigate the complaint made by EL and then act on her findings.
Dutton said she watched hours of surveillance tape, interviewed employees who were present with EL and LB at the alleged incident reported by EL, and she concluded that EL’s complaint was without grounds.
Dutton’s confirmation of LB’s role with the toke committee (collection of employee tips) and his consistently above average work performance are seen to speak to LB’s honesty and integrity. He is clearly trusted by over 900 co-workers on a daily basis.
While the single incident leading to LB being charged with assault remains in question, and on the balance of probabilities, the evidence presented fails to lead to a conclusion that LB is violent or an apparent threat to the safety of the public.
In the matter of integrity, the evidence is that LB is (and remains) a co-chair of the casino toke committee and trusted by his co-workers. In the Tribunal’s view, this is an endorsement of the Applicant’s trustworthiness and integrity. There was no evidence to dispute this.
Looking backwards, The Tribunal takes into account that LB completed four years of terms and conditions on his registration in the industry (resulting from the 2002 incident) without any contravention or issues raised. This speaks to his governability.
In summary, it is apparent that LB and EL had a turbulent personal relationship punctuated by many break ups and reconciliations. It was a relationship which was further complicated by the fact that the two are co-workers.
Allegations made by the Registrar are, on their face, troubling. In his evidence, LB purported to provide an explanation for the events which form the basis of the Registrar's order but, it is not for the Tribunal to decide LB’s guilt or innocence of the charges in themselves as these are matters for the court to decide.
However, the Tribunal can conclude that the relationship was a tumultuous one which in its latter stages did affect the work place. The evidence from Dutton would suggest that LB's work ethic is not problematic and that he has, in his role, acted with honesty and integrity. Therefore the issue is whether the public interest is impacted and is it necessary to maintain this suspension to protect the public interest.
In concluding, on the facts, that it is not, the Tribunal is in no way diminishing the seriousness of the charges within the domestic situation and therefore conditions are appropriate.
With regard to the De Sousa decision, as referenced by Ms. Khan, it can be distinguished. For example, De Sousa was in a position of trust and authority. There, the domestic assault followed another altercation with police and there were previous "brushes" with the law. De Sousa also ignored certain conditions on his registration. Considering the totality of events in that matter, it was reasonable for the Board to conclude that the public perception of honesty and integrity within the gaming industry would be negatively affected and therefore it was in the public interest to uphold that suspension.
ORDER
Pursuant to the authority vested in it under the provisions of the Act, the Tribunal directs the Registrar to set aside the Order of Immediate Suspension and orders that the following conditions attach to the registration:
The Registrant shall advise the Registrar within 7 days of any complaint filed against him pursuant to the Casino's workplace harassment and discrimination policy.
The Registrant shall advise the Registrar within 7 days of the outcome of these criminal charges currently before the courts. Thereafter, the Registrar may issue a Notice of Proposed Order for suspension or revocation to be heard upon 7 days notice to the Registrant.
The Registrant shall advise the Registrar in writing within 10 days of any and all charges, convictions and findings of guilt, including where an absolute or conditional discharge is granted or other disposition is made, of any charge under any legislation and in any jurisdiction including but not limited to the Criminal Code of Canada and the Ontario Highway Traffic Act.
LICENCE APPEAL TRIBUNAL
Simon Dann, Member
Released: July 19, 2012