Licence Appeal Tribunal
FILE: 10643/CDSSA
CASE NAME: 10643 v. Registrar, Collection and Debt Settlement Services Act
Appeal under section 8 of the Collection and Debt Settlement Services Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C. 14, from a Notice of Proposal to Refuse Registration
Kareem Khan Appellant
-and-
Registrar, Collection and Debt Settlement Services Act Respondent
DECISION AND ORDER
ADJUDICATOR: Luisa Ritacca, Member
APPEARANCES:
For the Appellant: Self-represented
For the Respondent: William Robinson
Heard in Toronto: June 12, 2017
DECISION AND ORDER
OVERVIEW
The Registrar, Collection and Debt Settlement Services Act (the “Registrar” and the “Act” respectively) issued a Notice of Proposal to Refuse Registration, dated February 1, 2017, which proposed to refuse the registration of Kareem W. Khan, the Appellant, as a collector under the Act.
The reason given by the Registrar to refuse the Appellant’s registration was that there were reasonable grounds to believe that the Appellant will not carry on business with integrity. In completing his application form, the Appellant failed to provide information regarding outstanding criminal charges, which he was required to do as part of the application process.
The Appellant appealed the Notice of Proposal to Refuse Registration to the Licence Appeal Tribunal (the “Tribunal”).
For the reasons set out below, the appeal is dismissed. The Tribunal orders the Registrar to carry out the proposal to refuse the registration of the Appellant.
ISSUE
- The issue that this Tribunal must decide is whether there are reasonable grounds to believe that the Appellant will not, if registered as a collector under the Act, carry on business in accordance with law and with integrity and honesty, as required.
FACTS AND EVIDENCE
On January 23, 2017, the Appellant applied for registration as a collector under the Act. In support of his request, he completed and filed an Application for Licence or Registration New, Reinstatement or Renewal. The Appellant certified that the information he provided therein was true to the best of his knowledge.
Part 4 of the application required the Appellant to answer a number of questions regarding his background. Question 9 provided as follows:
Have you ever been convicted of an offence under any law of any province, territory, state or country, or are you currently the subject of any charges?
The Appellant answered “no” to this question.
Upon receiving the Appellant’s application, the Registrar testified that his office conducted its usual review, which included ordering a CPIC check on the Appellant. The CPIC check revealed that as of the end of January 2017, the Appellant had four outstanding criminal charges, including charges relating to counterfeit and fraud, under $5000.00. The charges were outstanding from 2008 and 2009. As a result of this discovery, the Registrar issued the Notice of Proposal to Refuse Registration.
At the hearing, the Appellant conceded that the answer he provided on his application to question 9 was not correct and that, as of the date of his application, he had four outstanding criminal charges.
In addition, at the hearing, it was not contested by the Appellant that he had previously applied for registration in November 2013. On that application, the Appellant failed to disclose his outstanding charges and was again denied his registration. He was provided with a letter confirming the refusal in early 2014.
The Appellant acknowledged that he understood that the reason he was denied registration following his first application was because he failed to disclose his outstanding charges to the Registrar. He also acknowledged that he understood following the refusal of his first application that he had an obligation to include outstanding charges when answering question 9 on the application form.
In his evidence to the Tribunal, the Appellant explained that at the time he completed his application in January 2017, he believed that his outstanding charges had been withdrawn and that given the passage of time, he did not need to provide any information about those charges on his application.
The Appellant testified that in fact, the outstanding charges were not withdrawn until sometime in late February 2017, after he applied for and was refused registration as a collector under the Act.
While the Appellant was unable to produce written confirmation with respect to the withdrawal of his charges, the Registrar did not contest the point.
LAW AND ANALYSIS
- Section 6 of the Act sets out the grounds upon which an application for registration may be denied. Applicants are entitled to registration except under certain enumerated circumstances.
6(1) An applicant is entitled to registration or renewal of registration by the Registrar except where,
(a) …
(b) the past conduct of the applicant affords reasonable grounds for belief that the applicant will not carry on business in accordance with law and with integrity and honesty;
Section 28(1)(a) of the Act makes it an offence to knowingly furnish false information in any application under the Act.
While the Appellant ably expressed his position and his deep regret for having provided inaccurate information on his application, the Tribunal is nonetheless concerned about the Appellant’s ability to carry on business in accordance with the law and with integrity and honesty.
The Appellant admitted that he understood in 2014 that he had to provide information to the Registrar about any and all outstanding charges. He understood that he was refused registration for his failure to do so the first time around in 2014. In the circumstances, the Tribunal finds that the Appellant knew that he had to include information about his outstanding charges on his January 2017 application. Further, having knowingly provided false information on this application, the Appellant committed an offence under section 28(1)(a) of the Act.
While the Appellant may have believed that his charges were withdrawn, there was no evidence before the Tribunal that the Appellant took any steps to confirm that the charges were withdrawn before completing his application form. It appears that he took steps to confirm the withdrawal only after the Registrar refused his registration. The Appellant ought to either have taken steps to confirm that his charges had been withdrawn or answered “yes” to question 9.
The Tribunal is satisfied that the Registrar has shown that there are reasonable grounds for belief that the Appellant will not carry on business in accordance with law and with integrity and honesty. The Registrar bases his decision to register an applicant on the application received. It is incumbent on an applicant to provide truthful and accurate information. Failing to do so calls into doubt an applicant’s ability to carry on business with integrity honesty, and in accordance with the law.
ORDER
- In accordance with the authority vested in it pursuant to section 8(4) of the Act, the Tribunal orders the Registrar to carry out the proposal to refuse the registration of the Appellant.
LICENCE APPEAL TRIBUNAL
Luisa Ritacca, Member
Released: June 26, 2017