Licence Tribunal

Appeal d'appel en

Tribunal matière de permis

DATE:

2014-04-15

FILE:

8456/GCA

CASE NAME:

8456 v. Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming

Appeal from a Notice of Proposed Order of the Registrar under the Gaming Control Act, 1992, S.O. 1992 c. 24 - to Refuse Registration

K.D.R.

Applicant

-and-

Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming

Respondent

REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDER

ADJUDICATOR:

Kenneth W. Koprowski, Vice-Chair

APPEARANCES:

For the Applicant:

Self-represented

For the Respondent:

Aviva Harari, Counsel

Heard in Windsor

March 20, 2014

DECISION AND ORDER

BACKGROUND

The Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming (the “Registrar”) under the Gaming Control Act, 1992, (the “Act”) issued a Notice of Proposed Order dated October 25, 2013, which proposed to refuse the registration of the Applicant as a gaming assistant in the class of Category 2 gaming assistant under the Act. K.D.R. (the "Applicant") appealed this Notice of Proposed Order to the Licence Appeal Tribunal.

INTRODUCTION

The Applicant had been a gaming assistant at a bingo establishment in Windsor, Ontario, since May, 2010. By Ontario Regulation 78/12, filed May 14, 2012 under the Act, she was required to be registered as a Category 2 gaming assistant. She completed an application, dated April 28, 2013, to be registered. The Registrar received the application on June 25, 2013.

The Registrar refused to allow the Applicant to be registered pursuant to section 11(a) of the Act, and issued a Notice of Proposed Order to Refuse Registration dated October 25, 2013.

The reason given by the Registrar for refusing registration was that there were reasonable grounds to believe that the Applicant will not act as a gaming assistant in accordance with law, or with integrity, honesty, or in the public interest, having regard to her past conduct. The particulars that the Registrar relied on were that the Applicant had been convicted of various offences under the Criminal Code of Canada in the years 2004, 2006 and 2009. In addition, the Registrar relied on the Applicant’s failure to make full disclosure on the application and on the Applicant’s disclosure that she had a number of debts that had been referred to collection.

The Registrar submitted, in the Notice of Proposed Order, that, as a regulated industry in Ontario, the provision of gaming services requires that the utmost honesty and integrity be demonstrated by a registered gaming assistant in order to maintain the integrity of gaming operations, to protect the public and to maintain confidence in the regulation of gaming operations.

The position of the Applicant, who represented herself, was that, after she began to work at the bingo hall in May, 2010, she had turned her life around, was a respected employee and that, although she disclosed all other relevant matters in the application, including the criminal convictions in 2004 and 2009, she left out the convictions in 2006 through oversight and not intentionally. While working at the bingo hall and having to handle sums of money, she never faltered in her obligations as a gaming assistant.

ISSUE

The issue that this Tribunal must decide upon is whether there are reasonable grounds to believe that the Applicant will not act as a gaming assistant in accordance with law, or with integrity, honesty, or in the public interest, having regard to the past conduct of the Applicant.

Evidence on behalf of the Registrar

Rick Morrison

Mr. Morrison had been, as of the date of this hearing, an investigator with the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario (“AGCO”) since 1998. Previously, he had been with the Ontario Provincial Police (“OPP”) for 32 years. He stated that, during his time with the OPP, he became experienced in criminal and traffic investigations.

His duties with AGCO included reviewing applications for registration made to the Registrar pursuant to the Act. In the Applicant’s case, he received her application (Tab 3, Exhibit #3) in August, 2013.

He stated that, on reviewing the application, he found it difficult to understand the Applicant’s “Personal History” (found at page 6 of Tab 3, Exhibit #3). Notwithstanding that testimony, although he said that it is important to present such a history in the correct order, he gave no evidence or any indication that the “Personal History’ was incorrect or incomplete in any way.

He then reviewed the Applicant’s criminal record, which the Applicant summarized at page 8 of Tab 3. The Applicant disclosed the facts leading to her conviction for assault causing bodily harm in 2004 and also disclosed the facts leading to her conviction for possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking in 2009.

Mr. Morrison then referred to the Record of the Applicant’s convictions, found at Tab 4 of Exhibit #3 that he obtained from the Windsor Police Services. The Record confirms the convictions in 2004 and 2009 that the Applicant disclosed in her application. The conviction on January 26, 2004, for assault causing bodily harm, resulted in a conditional sentence for one year. The conviction on March 6, 2009, for trafficking in cocaine, resulted in a prison term of three years.

The Record also revealed three convictions against the Applicant on September 21, 2006. These were not disclosed in the application. The convictions were for (1) failing to comply with a recognizance, (2) failing to attend Court and (3) failing to comply with a Probation Order. The sentence imposed for (1) and (2) was one day in custody on each count, to run concurrently. The sentence imposed on (3) was a fine of $100.00.

Mr. Morrison confirmed that all his contacts with the Applicant were by telephone. She was co-operative at all times when he spoke to her. She did not deny any of the convictions when he discussed them with her.

Mr. Morrison also obtained, from the Windsor Police Services, the General Occurrence Reports relating to each of the matters that resulted in the convictions in 2004, 2006 and 2009. The Report relating to the 2004 charge is found at Tab 6 of Exhibit #3. The Report for the 2006 charges is found at Tab 7 of Exhibit #3. The Report for the 2009 charge is found at Tab 5 of Exhibit #3.

The officers who prepared these reports were not called as witnesses. Mr. Morrison prepared his own summary of the Occurrence Reports and recounted his summary at this hearing. However, in response to questioning from the Tribunal, Mr. Morrison admitted that his evidence was hearsay, inasmuch as his summary was offered as proof of the truth of the reports’ contents but was based on reports that were prepared by persons who were not present at and who did not testify at this hearing.

Mr. Morrison also confirmed with the Tribunal that, although the Applicant’s sentence imposed on the 2009 conviction was three years in prison, she was actually back in the community in March, 2010, albeit with periodic supervision by a Probation Officer for the two years remaining on her sentence.

Mr. Morrison also referred to the Applicant’s problems with not filing her income tax returns. His notes about this matter are found at Tab 11 of Exhibit #3. Although he stated in evidence that he spoke to the Applicant about the matter on August 7, 2013, his notes show August 12, 2013, as the day on which he spoke to her. He could not explain why there was that difference in the dates. Regardless, he ascertained that the Applicant’s income tax returns for 2007 and 2008 were brought up to date on her behalf while she was in custody in 2009. However, there were no filings for the years 2009, 2010, 2011and 2012. Subsequent evidence from the Applicant confirmed that those returns were brought up to date by December, 2013.

The Applicant did not cross-examine Mr. Morrison, admitting candidly that she did not know how to cross-examine a person. Nevertheless, she stated that the evidence given by Mr. Morrison was true.

Jeff Longhurst

Mr. Longhurst is a Deputy Registrar under the Act. He has been with AGCO since 1994 and has been, as at the date of this hearing, Director of Licensing and Registration for one and a half years.

He confirmed that the purpose of the Act was to regulate the casino industry and the charitable gaming industry. The Act sets rules relating to lottery schemes in casinos and in charitable gaming places such as the bingo hall in which the Applicant had been working. The Act also regulates suppliers and gaming assistants and callers at bingo halls. The Registrar must also protect the public interest component of the industry.

He further testified that, under the Act, individuals are expected to conduct themselves with honesty, integrity and in accordance with the law. The Registrar must have regard to the public interest and the financial responsibility of an applicant.

He confirmed that, in the Applicant’s application, he was concerned with the criminal convictions against her. Nevertheless, he confirmed that, in question 6(a) of the application (found at page 7 of Tab 3 of Exhibit #3), the Applicant answered “Yes” to the question whether she has ever been charged, convicted or found guilty of any offence in Canada or elsewhere. The Applicant also answered “Yes” to questions 7 (c) and (d) of the application. Question 7(c) asked whether the Applicant had any loans in default and/or debts that have been sent to collections and that remain outstanding. Not only did the Applicant answer “Yes,” but she also disclosed particulars of her debts on the following page of the application. Similarly, Question 7(d) asked whether the Applicant was in arrears in either filing or paying her income taxes. The applicant answered “Yes” and further disclosed that the tax returns for 2009 to 2012 were outstanding because of missing paperwork and that she was “working on getting the proper things I need to take care of this matter,” quoted from her application.

Mr. Longhurst said that the Applicant’s failure to disclose her 2006 convictions was a cause for concern because the application form was the main test to determine honesty.

Mr. Longhurst was concerned that the 2006 convictions occurred while the Applicant was under some form of Court-ordered supervision. He noted that, as a Category 2 gaming assistant, the Applicant would also be subject to a form of supervision; namely, the regulations under the Act.

Mr. Longhurst also was concerned that, in four years, the Applicant had nine address changes. The Tribunal notes that the Applicant fully disclosed the addresses in answer to Question 3(a) (page 4 of Tab 3 of Exhibit #3) and also provided an additional sheet detailing all her addresses in that period of time.

Mr. Longhurst further stated that he had concerns because the Applicant did not have a significant period of good conduct. In response to questioning from the Tribunal as to what length of time he would consider to be a period of good conduct, Mr. Longhurst replied four years. He did not qualify or place any limitations on his answer in any way.

The Tribunal notes that the evidence reveals that the Applicant has been in the community for four years since her release from custody and began work at the bingo hall within two months of her release from custody. There is no evidence of any improper conduct on her part in that period of four years.

The Applicant had disclosed her drug addiction in her application, at page 6 of her application (Tab 3, Exhibit #3). Counsel for the Registrar asked Mr. Longhurst if there was any evidence to support the Applicant’s assurance that she had beaten her drug addiction that had given rise to her convictions in 2006. He stated that there was not, but, by the same measure, offered no evidence that would show that her assertion was inaccurate.

Evidence on behalf of the Applicant

K.D.R.

K.D.R. testified in a short, simple, yet direct and sincere manner, despite being very nervous.

She stated that she has four children, ages 17, 18, 20 and 21. Her 20-year old son lives with her at an address where she has been for the last year. Her two daughters live with K.D.R.’s mother, but K.D.R. is trying to arrange for them to live with her. Her oldest child lives on his own.

She stated that her 4 children were taken from her by the local Children’s Aid Society (“CAS”) in 2006. Although she then reverted to taking drugs because of the loss of her children (“to cope,” as she stated), it was not the drug problem that caused the CAS to remove her children. Since 2007, she has been clean.

As for not disclosing the convictions from 2006 in her application, she was adamant that she did not purposely fail to disclose them. She forgot, but remembered the other two convictions as she recognized that those two were very serious. Ironically, she was represented by counsel at the time of the other two convictions in 2004 and 2009, but represented herself at the time of the 2006 convictions. She candidly admitted that the 2006 convictions (failing to attend Court and failing to comply with a Probation Order) resulted from her use of drugs. She also stated that her oversight in disclosing the 2006 convictions resulted from having only a short period of time in which to complete her application after her manager told her to apply. She repeated that she did not forget on purpose.

After her conviction in March, 2009, she was in jail for two weeks and then was transferred to GVI (presumably Grand Valley Institute for Women). After six months, she was transferred to a halfway house for a further six months before her release into the community. She was not a behavioural problem while in custody. While incarcerated, she underwent random drug tests that confirmed that she had not consumed any drugs. After she was released into the community in 2010, she knew that she was on probation for the remaining two years of her term. She had no further problems with the law. She knew that, if she re-offended in those two years, she would be brought back to jail. The threat of going back was a strong motivation for her. A Probation Officer would visit her two times a month at her residence. Drug tests were done once each month, randomly, so that she never knew when the tests would occur. The tests revealed no evidence that the Applicant consumed drugs.

After her release in March, 2010, she started to work at the bingo hall in May, 2010, where she was still working at the time her manager told her in 2013 that she had to apply to be registered as a gaming assistant. She had no work-related issues. She was always on time for work and even came in on her days off. She worked four days a week, 91/2 hours a day, yet was still considered to be “part time.” When her probation period ended in 2012, she still had no problems with taking drugs. If she did have any problems with drugs, she considered that she would lose her job as a card seller.

In her position at work, she would put money into a pod game and slot machines and would cash out customers. She was never short any money and never short-changed any customer. She had no problems with her money count at the end of her shifts. She emphasized that she had no problems at all with anything to do with money at work.

On cross-examination, she stated that she woke up one day and decided to stop taking drugs. She also agreed that she has not taken any voluntary drug counselling. Her last drug test was in 2012, but underwent no tests since then.

At work, she had to balance out her cash each day. She always worked under a supervisor or a manager. During each shift, there would usually be two managers, four card sellers and bingo callers.

Concerning her failure to file income tax returns, she admitted that they were past due, but brought them up to date in 2013, after she completed her application. She denied that it was Mr. Morrison’s questions to her about the returns that caused her to file them. The Tribunal notes that, in her application, dated April 28, 2013, she wrote that she was “working on getting the proper things I need to take care of this matter.” Mr. Morrison did not interview her about her tax returns until August, 2013, approximately four months later.

She also confirmed that the convictions resulted from her pleading guilty to all charges and not as a result of proceeding with a trial on the merits.

Witnesses on behalf of the Applicant

The applicant called 7 witnesses to testify on her behalf. Four of the witnesses were either fellow employees or her co-ordinator or supervisor. Three witnesses were family members.

At the request of Counsel for the Registrar, the Tribunal made an order at the beginning of the hearing excluding witnesses from the hearing room. The Tribunal explained to the Applicant’s witnesses that, among other things, they had to wait outside the hearing room until called as a witness. Once they finished testifying, they could not reveal their testimony to the other witnesses who had not yet been called and could not reveal the questions that they had to answer while giving their evidence. Consequently, the Tribunal is satisfied that, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the evidence of each witness that is summarized, below, was independent of the evidence given by the other witnesses.

J.D. is the Applicant’s supervisor at work and has known her for four years. She described the Applicant as being “…hard-working, reliable…does extra shifts, dependable…admits if she is wrong.” J.D. wants the Applicant to continue working for her. She has no issues with the Applicant’s handling of money, cashing out or with having any money missing.

On cross-examination, J.D. stated that the Applicant admitted to her that she had a drug problem and was on parole. However, J.D. also stated that there was no reason to have to know the Applicant’s past in order for her to work at the bingo hall. J.D. also wrote a letter of reference (attached to the Notice of Appeal) and that her own supervisor knew that J.D. had written it.

She also stated, in response to questioning from the Tribunal, that she was not aware of any complaints about the Applicant from other supervisors or from customers and that she would have been aware of such complaints, if made.

S.D. is the Applicant’s co-ordinator who has known her and has been her co-ordinator since the Applicant started to work at the bingo hall. In the Applicant’s job, the Applicant brings the money to her. S.D. then counts it and verifies that it is the proper amount. S.D. stated that there has never been a problem with amounts from the Applicant. She describes the Applicant as a good worker and that there were no problems with shortages or, if there were shortages, they were never intentional. She had no problems working with the Applicant.

S.D. knew that the Applicant had been in jail on account of drugs because the Applicant told her. But, S.D. believed that the Applicant has now gone past that, inasmuch as she has had no problems with the Applicant since she started to work at the bingo hall.

A.C. is a co-worker of the Applicant who has known her for 2 ½ years. She described the Applicant as “loving, caring, out-going, honest, happy…has a great personality…and is an all-round good person.” The Applicant has been open about her past. A.C. knew that the Applicant had a problem with cocaine and that she went to jail because of her involvement with the drug, but the Applicant has told her that she became “clean” in 2007.

J.F. is also a fellow employee and a personal friend of the Applicant who has known her for three years. It was the Applicant who trained J.F. when J.F. started to work at the bingo hall. J.F. described the Applicant as “…out-going, responsible, respectable …a go-getter…a phenomenal friend.” There has never been a problem with the Applicant at work.

J.F. acknowledged that the Applicant told her of her past and that she had been in jail because of her drug use. She believes the Applicant has been completely honest with her. J.F. believes that the Applicant has learned from her mistakes and that she is working to better her future.

Of the three family members of the Applicant who testified, T.R. was her younger sister. She described the Applicant as “…kind, generous, selfless, hard-working, determined and persevering.” She was aware that the Applicant went to prison for trafficking in drugs. She acknowledged, on cross-examination, that she did not work in the bingo industry. She also acknowledged that she was close to the Applicant until she went to prison. Since then, they have not been as close. She described their current relationship as “off and on.” She believed that the Applicant struggled with her drug habit “for a few years.”

D.B., the Applicant’s aunt by marriage, has known her for more than 30 years. She described the Applicant as honest, relaxed, fun and conscientious. She knew about her past crimes because the Applicant had told her about them “in spurts.” D.B. stated that the Applicant is staying away from drugs. She has done her time and would make an excellent employee as she has been for the last four years.

On cross-examination, D.B. confirmed that she is retired, having been employed by the Ministry of Transportation for Ontario as a licensing clerk. She always had a positive relationship with the Applicant except for the period of more than one year when the Applicant had a drug problem. D.B. knew of her drug problem as a result of information that the Applicant’s mother gave her.

C.W. is the Applicant’s mother. She worked as a cash co-ordinator since September, 2006, at the same bingo hall as the Applicant. She works the day shift whereas the Applicant works the night shift. She described her daughter as “kind, caring and brutally honest at times. The Applicant asked no further questions of her mother.

On cross-examination, C.W. stated that she always had a close relationship with her daughter except for “a couple of years” when the Applicant was on drugs, a time period that she estimated to be 2005 to 2007. C.W. stated that it was only her belief (contrary to what the Applicant stated) that the Applicant’s children were taken by the CAS on two occasions, not just one.

She further stated that, after the Applicant was released on parole in 2010, she lived with her grandmother.

C.W. confirmed the Applicant’s evidence that she had a very short period of time between the time they were told by management to apply for registration under the Act and the time by which the application had to be completed. She spent four hours with the Applicant in completing the Applicant’s application so that they could try to think of everything to include in the application. C.W. was not aware of the 2006 convictions, inasmuch as they were registered against the Applicant when she was away and when C.W. stated that the Applicant “had it bad” at that time.

In response to questioning from the Tribunal, C.W. stated that, now, there is a big difference with the Applicant. People at the bingo hall ask about her. She has come a long way since her previous involvement with the law. She has “turned her life around,” to quote C.W., in that the Applicant is working steadily for four years, she is liked by the customers, she is great with people and is good at her job. One customer offered financial assistance to the Applicant if that would help her obtain her registration under the Act.

THE LAW

The registration of gaming assistants is governed by section 11(a) of the Act, on which the Registrar relies in refusing to grant registration to the Applicant. That section provides as follows:

Registration of gaming assistants

11. The Registrar shall refuse to register an applicant as a gaming assistant or to renew the registration of an applicant as a gaming assistant if,

(a) there are reasonable grounds to believe that the applicant will not act as a gaming assistant in accordance with law, or with integrity, honesty, or in the public interest, having regard to the past conduct of the applicant or persons interested in the applicant;

Section 10(1) of Ontario Regulation 78/12 under the Act further provides for the necessity of the Applicant’s registration. That section reads as follows:

10. (1) No person, other than a gaming assistant registered as a category 2 gaming assistant, is authorized to do any of the actions described in the definition of “category 2 gaming assistant” in section 1.

In turn, ”Category 2 gaming Assistant”, which was the work that the Applicant performed for over three years and for which she sought to be registered, is defined in section 1 of the Regulation as follows:

“category 2 gaming assistant” means an individual who is employed in the conduct, management or operation of a lottery scheme or in the operation of a gaming site and who, in the opinion of the Registrar, does not exercise a significant level of decision-making authority or have significant supervisory or training responsibilities with respect to the lottery scheme or the site;

In applying the above provisions, the Registrar relied on the following past conduct: the Applicant’s past Criminal Code convictions that the Registrar considered to be serious in nature; the Applicant’s failure to disclose the Criminal Code convictions in 2006; the Applicant’s disclosure that she had debts that have been sent to collections and that remain outstanding; and the Applicant’s disclosure that she was in arrears in filing her income tax returns.

ANALYSIS

The assault causing bodily harm conviction was in 2004, nine years before the date of her application in April, 2013. The 2006 convictions were seven years before that date. The conviction for trafficking occurred four years before that date.

The evidence of Mr. Longhurst, the Deputy Registrar, in response to questioning from the Tribunal, stated that the Registrar would want to see a significant period of time of good conduct before considering an applicant’s application for registration. He stated that such a period should be four years. He did not qualify that period of time or place any limitations or conditions on that period of time.

In this case, the evidence confirms that the Applicant has been out in the community for over 4 years. Counsel for the Registrar submitted that the first two years of that period were supervised by a Parole Officer who saw the Applicant two times a month. But, the evidence of Mr. Longhurst concerning the period of time of good conduct made no such reference to a period free of supervision, and it is the evidence presented to this Tribunal on which its decision must be made.

When one considers the issue of “past conduct,” the period of years during which the Applicant was steadily employed at the bingo hall cannot be ignored. That period involves “past conduct” as much as any of the breaches of the law relied on by the Registrar. Her work experience was exemplary, according to the uncontradicted evidence of her supervisor, co-ordinator and two fellow employees. Her good work experience over those four years was also more recent an activity than the convictions in 2004, 2006 and 2009.

Mr. Longhurst said that the Applicant’s failure to disclose her 2006 convictions was a cause for concern because the application form was the main test to determine honesty.

The Tribunal notes that, if the application is the main test to determine honesty, the Registrar’s focus on that one omission fails to recognize the full and complete disclosure that the Applicant made in the rest of the application. There was no other item of non-disclosure that the Registrar complained of.

Furthermore, the evidence of Mr. Morrison concerning the investigative notes in the Occurrence Reports of the Windsor Police Department was nothing short of hearsay. He summarized those reports into his own wording. The officers who prepared those reports were not called as witnesses. There was no proof that the material in those Reports was actually relied on at the sentencing hearings when the Applicant’s sentences were imposed. There was no evidence that the information in the summary that Mr. Morrison prepared was the same as the information that was used at the sentencing hearings. We are left with information from third parties who were not at this hearing and with material which was proffered for the truth of that information.

Even were the principled approach used to argue the admissibility of such hearsay evidence, there was no evidence led to relate to the issues of reliability and necessity. No evidence was led to inform this Tribunal that the officers who wrote the reports were unavailable.

Section 15(1) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act R.S.O. 1990, Chapter S.22, allows the Tribunal to consider hearsay evidence with discretion. The Tribunal should only admit hearsay evidence if its prejudicial effect is not greater than its probative value.

That section reads as follows:

15. (1)Subject to subsections (2) and (3), a tribunal may admit as evidence at a hearing, whether or not given or proven under oath or affirmation or admissible as evidence in a court,

(a) any oral testimony; and

(b) any document or other thing,

relevant to the subject-matter of the proceeding and may act on such evidence, but the tribunal may exclude anything unduly repetitious.

In this case, the inability to test the validity of the Reports of the Police Officers by way of cross-examination or other inquiry severely prejudiced the Applicant. The Applicant did inform the Tribunal that the evidence of Mr. Morrison was correct and that she did not know how to cross-examine someone. However, the Tribunal does not consider such a concession from a self-represented person to be the equivalent of an admission that the material outlined in the Reports was actually the material read at her sentencing hearings, inasmuch as there was no evidence, either, from the Registrar to satisfy the Tribunal of that same issue on a balance of probabilities. The Registrar’s case cannot be proved by conjecture.

The Tribunal concludes that little weight can be placed on the hearsay evidence of Mr. Morrison as it related to the Police Reports and his own summary of them.

As for the Registrar’s position that non-disclosure of the 2006 convictions gave rise to reasonable grounds to believe that the Applicant will not act as a gaming assistant in accordance with law, or with integrity, honesty, or in the public interest, the Applicant stated that she forgot to include those convictions in the application and that she did not purposely leave them out. There was no evidence to contradict her testimony. Her mother’s evidence was that she and the Applicant spent four hours filling out the application in order for it to be as complete as possible. Her mother was not aware of the 2006 convictions. The Applicant forgot. There is nothing in the evidence before this Tribunal that would lead the Tribunal to conclude that her evidence on that matter is false.

To focus on that one omission ignores the fact that the Applicant disclosed everything else, fully and completely, that she had to record in the application.

She disclosed:

• her conviction in 2004 and provided additional information about it.

• her conviction in 2009 and also provided additional information about it.

• a complete history of the addresses at which she lived from 2009 to the date of her application.

• that she had debts. She listed three in an additional sheet attached to the application. There was no evidence led by the Registrar or from the Applicant as to the amount of those debts. The Tribunal does not know whether the debts were small or large and, therefore, does not know the significance of the amounts. In today’s society, the Tribunal considers that it would be unreasonable to expect that an applicant for registration would have no debts whatsoever, nor is there anything in the Act or its Regulation that requires that an applicant be debt-free. In any event, the Applicant further disclosed in her application that she would try to make arrangements to pay off any additional debts that she might owe. The point is, she did not hide those debts from the Registrar.

• that she was in arrears in filing her income tax returns. She explained that she was missing paperwork and other information and that she was working on taking care of this matter. There was no evidence that she took that step only because Mr. Morrison spoke to her about the matter, as Counsel for the Registrar suggested in her cross-examination. His interview with her about the tax returns was in August, 2013, whereas she had already stated in her application, dated April 28, 2013 (that is, before he interviewed her), that she was “working on getting the proper things I need to take care of this matter.” Further, the Applicant’s evidence was that all filings were made by December, 2013.

Such complete disclosure is, indeed, evidence of honesty and integrity. The Registrar raised no other complaints of non-disclosure than the convictions in 2006.

The Tribunal accepts the evidence of the Applicant, uncontradicted as it is, that she did not purposely omit reference to the 2006 convictions. The Tribunal concludes that her full and complete disclosure about all the other matters in the application supports her testimony.

In any event, the Tribunal must weigh the evidence of the Applicant’s past conduct and provide an analysis of the likely future conduct in light of the past conduct. Past conduct may be excused in some cases where there is evidence to indicate that an applicant’s activity will be conducted in accordance with the law and with honesty and integrity in the future (Registrar, Motor Vehicle Dealers Act v. Unity-A-Automotive Inc. et al., 2009 CanLII 67420 (ON SCDC)).

In that case, at paragraph 23, Swinton J. states:

23It is the Tribunal's task to weigh the evidence, and not the task of this court. In this case, the Tribunal was required to consider all of the respondent's past conduct to assess whether that conduct affords reasonable grounds to believe that the business will not be carried on in accordance with law, integrity and honesty in the future. However, the reasons of the Tribunal lead me to conclude that it failed to consider the evidence in light of the statute's requirements. There is no analysis of the respondent's likely future conduct in light of his past conduct, even though the Tribunal stated [at para.51], "By his own testimony, he was not fluent enough in the language to fully understand both complex legal language and general business matters" (at p. 7 of the reasons). There is only an expectation expressed by the Tribunal that the respondent will consult a lawyer on his legal responsibilities.

(Emphasis is added)

At paragraph 24, Swinton J. states:

24In some cases, past misconduct may be excused, where the evidence shows that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the business will be conducted in accordance with the law and with honesty and integrity. Here, there was no examination of the evidence in order to determine whether that is the likely case.

(Emphasis is added)

The Tribunal accepts the above reasoning as being applicable to the case now before it. Accordingly, the Tribunal must assess all of the Applicant’s past conduct. That past conduct includes her time of exemplary employment at the bingo hall for a period of years from the time of her release in 2010, after her 2009 conviction. The Tribunal also assesses favourably the full and complete information that she provided in her application (save for her oversight regarding the 2006 convictions, an oversight that the Tribunal accepts as being unintentional). The Tribunal concludes that the Applicant’s past conduct can be excused based on her past unassailable conduct during her work at the bingo hall after her release from jail, based on the evidence of her supervisors and co-workers. There was no evidence that, after her release from jail in 2010, she was involved in any way with any further breach of the law or with the use of drugs. The Registrar’s suggestion that there was no evidence to prove that the Applicant was drug-free since 2007 raises only a conjecture, not proof on a balance of probabilities. Further, there was no evidence that the Applicant, in any way during her employment at the bingo hall or at any time after her release from jail, put the public interest at risk.

The evidence, looked at in its totality, reveals, therefore, that there are reasonable grounds to believe that her work as a Category 2 gaming assistant will be conducted in accordance with law and with honesty and integrity and in the public interest.

ORDER

Pursuant to the authority vested in it under the provisions of the Act, the Tribunal directs the Registrar not to carry out the Proposed Order.