Licence Appeal Tribunal

Safety, Licensing Appeals and Standards Tribunals Ontario

Tribunal d’appel en matière de permis Tribunaux de la sécurité, des appels en matière de permis et des normes Ontario

Citation: John Knight v. Registrar under the Alcohol, Cannabis and Gaming Regulation and Public Protection Act, 1996, 2019 ONLAT 12187 GCA

Date: 2019-10-21

Appeal from the Notice of Proposed Order of the Registrar of Alcohol, Cannabis and Racing under the Gaming Control Act,1992, Ch.24 to Refuse Registration

Between:

John Christopher Knight Appellant

-and-

Registrar of Alcohol, Cannabis, Gaming and Racing Respondent

Decision

Adjudicator: Katherine Livingstone, Member

Appearances:

For the Appellant: self-represented

For the Respondent: Danielle Bastarache and Valreen Sealie, counsel

Hearing Date: September 27, 2019

Overview

1On March 11, 2019, the appellant, John Knight, applied online to register as a Category Two gaming assistant under the Gaming Control Act, (the Act). As part of that registration, he completed a Disclosure Report. He provided further information by way of a handwritten personal history form dated March 22, 2019.

2The online application was received by the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario (AGCO) licencing department on March 11, 2019. The department commenced a review of the application and determined there were discrepancies between information provided by the appellant in his application material and information obtained by the AGCO through their investigations.

3On June 20, 2019 the Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming (the “Registrar”), issued a Notice of Proposed Order to Refuse Registration (the “Proposed Order”).The refusal was on the basis that there were reasonable grounds to believe the appellant, based on his past conduct, would not act as a gaming assistant in accordance with the law, or with integrity, honesty, or in the public interest.

4The appellant appealed the Proposed Order to the Tribunal Licence Appeal Tribunal (the Tribunal) by Notice of Appeal received by the Tribunal on July 8, 2019.

The Law

5The Act sets out the grounds for refusing to register an individual as a gaming assistant and in its Proposed Order the Registrar relied on the following section of the Act:

Section 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;

6The Act also provides that following a hearing the Tribunal may confirm or set aside the proposed refusal to register and in doing so may substitute its own opinion for the of the Registrar.

7The Registrar has the burden of proving the appellant is not entitled to registration.

8The Ontario Court of Appeal in Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario v. 751809 Ontario Inc. 2013 ONCA 157 (Famous Flesh Gordon’s) at para. 18 confirmed the standard of proof of “reasonable grounds for belief” is a lower standard than that of “balance of probabilities”.

9Additionally, the Court in Famous Flesh Gordon’s confirmed the Registrar is entitled to rely on any past conduct that affords reasonable grounds for belief that the person will not carry on in the manner required by s. 11. Past conduct that is not criminal can provide the necessary reasonable grounds for belief.

Issue

10The issue to be determined is whether the appellant’s registration as a gaming assistant should be refused because there are reasonable grounds to believe that he will not act as a gaming assistant in accordance with the law or with honesty, integrity and in the public interest.

Result

11Based on the evidence heard and submitted during the course of the hearing together with the submissions made by the parties, I am not satisfied the appellant would undertake his responsibilities as a gaming assistant in accordance with the law or with integrity, honesty or in the public interest. I therefore order the Registrar to carry out the refusal in accordance with the Proposed Order.

Evidence

12The Registrar called two witnesses during the hearing, both of whom spoke to the discrepancies in the appellant’s application.

13Mr. Devin Sookdeo is currently a manager of eligibility and licencing for the AGCO. Prior to his present position he was an inspector with the AGCO and has been in their employ since 1998. Mr. Sookdeo described that, as an application such as the appellant’s is the first contact the person has with the AGCO, an accurate and truthful completion of the application materials is a critical means of assessing their honesty.

14When an application is received, a risk-based assessment is completed by an eligibility officer and then the file is given to an OPP officer to follow up any discrepancies in information. In the present case the eligibility officer found several discrepancies in the material forwarded by the appellant.

15Mr. Sookdeo underlined that honesty is important, as a gaming assistant will be dealing with the public and it is important to maintain the confidence of the public in the regulation of gaming operations.

16Mr. Sookdeo pointed to areas of the appellant’s Disclosure Report that raised concerns. In particular, the appellant’s answered “no” to the question of whether he had ever had a licence, permit or authorization, relating to gaming, refused of revoked. However, Mr. Knight was refused a renewal of his registration as a gaming assistant on August 13, 2008. Mr. Knight did not exercise his right to a hearing with respect to the refusal in 2008.

17Additionally, the appellant provided incomplete information about the extent of his criminal record and his driving record. Of note, the refusal of the appellant’s renewal in 2008 was due to incomplete information about both his criminal and driving record.

18In the light of the discrepancies, Constable Bourrie of the Ontario Provincial Police conducted the second phase of the investigation which included interviewing the appellant. She reviewed his Disclosure Report with the appellant as well as his handwritten notes of personal history.

19Question I of the Disclosure Report asked:

Have you ever been charged, found guilty and/or convicted of any offence in any jurisdiction? This includes an absolute and/ or conditional discharge, withdrawn charges, suspended sentences, convictions, fines or guilty pleas. Note: this includes ALL federal and provincial offences. Please provide the following information: name of offence, jurisdiction of offence, year of occurrence and outcome.

20In the Disclosure Report, the appellant answered “yes” to the first part of the question and then provided particulars as follows: “Theft Burlington 2002 Discharged”

21In his written notes he wrote “2009 theft, Burlington, dismissed” and “2007 poss (sic) of Burglary tools, Hamilton, dismissed”. He made no mention of convictions under the Highway Traffic Act in either the Disclosure Report or the handwritten notes.

22Constable Bourrie testified a criminal records check showed the appellant in fact has the following record:

1980 possession of burglary tools Hamilton 1 yr. probation 1980 possession of stolen property x2 Prince George 30 days 1981 possession of stolen property, theft x2 Oliver BC 9 mths 1984 utter forged document Hamilton 3 mths 2006 theft under $5000 St Catharines 1yr prob. 2007 fail to comply with undertaking Hamilton $500

23Additionally, a review of the appellant’s Highway Traffic Act (HTA) record shows the appellant has several convictions for offences under the HTA, dating back to 1988, most notably, two convictions in 2014 for driving while his licence was suspended.

24Officer Bourrie testified that in reviewing the criminal record with the appellant he was able to tell her about each incident. She asked the appellant why he hadn’t disclosed his full record and he told her he had forgotten as some of them were more than 30 years ago.

25She said the appellant told her he was fired in 2007 from a clothing charity because of an allegation of theft of a credit card but the charge was withdrawn in 2012. He agreed he had not disclosed the withdrawal on the application.

26Constable Bourrie testified the appellant told her he had been pardoned in 1984 however the pardon was rescinded when he committed further criminal offences. After speaking with the appellant, the officer made further inquiries and confirmed there had been a pardon, but it had been rescinded prior to the time he applied for the renewal in 2008.

27With respect to the absence of any mention of HTA matters on the application the officer said the appellant told her he didn’t understand the question.

28The officer related that the appellant said he had received a registration in 2004 as a gaming assistant at a bingo hall and he was fired from that job for calling the number too fast. When asked about the revocation in 2008 the officer said the appellant told her he was probably served with the notice of revocation, but he now suffers from a memory loss, so he doesn’t remember.

29The appellant testified. He denied he intentionally withheld information from the AGCO. Rather he said he suffered a stroke in 2013 and as a result he said he “lost part of his memory”. He said his memory loss doesn’t affect his everyday life, but it affected his ability to remember his criminal past. In cross examination he told respondent counsel he had no memory of the nine months he spent in jail in Oliver British Columbia.

30The appellant provided a copy of medical records which appear to confirm he had an Ischemic stroke on January 13, 2013 and was discharged for hospital 4 days later. A review of the records reveals no mention of problems with respect to memory loss.

31In cross examination the appellant again stated he didn’t understand question 1 as it related to HTA matters. He also stated he didn’t think the HTA “stuff” mattered.

32He admitted that most of his criminal offences were crimes of dishonesty and that he also had a conviction for failing to comply with a condition of release. He said up until a few years ago he used to hang around with people who had criminal records but that he has changed his way in the recent past.

33The appellant also called two witnesses to speak to his character. Both witnesses have known him for a significant period of time and are familiar with his prior work at the bingo hall. Interestingly, neither witness knew anything about him being fired from the bingo hall. Both said they had never known him to be dishonest.

Analysis

34To ensure public confidence in gaming operations it is imperative that gaming assistants meet the high standards of honesty and integrity.

35I have considered the appellant’s position that memory loss due to a stroke in 2013 led to his omissions in his application. I do not accept his explanation. His testimony with respect to his memory loss was vague and inconsistent and was not corroborated by either medical evidence or other independent evidence.

36Additionally, his application for renewal in 2008 was refused due to his failure to mention the entirety of his criminal record. That failure to disclose was before his stroke. History has repeated itself in the present application.

37While I acknowledge the appellant’s criminal convictions are of some vintage, the first one being over 35 years ago, the appellant’s evidence that he did not remember serving 9 months in jail in 1981 lacks credulity.

38The appellant also gave inconsistent evidence with respect to his failure to disclose his HTA convictions; at one point he said he didn’t understand the question and at another point he said he didn’t think HTA “stuff” mattered.

39Having determined that I do not accept the appellant’s explanations for the omissions in his Disclosure Report and being satisfied of the fact of his prior criminal and HTA record, I must now decide if those actions constitute reasonable grounds to believe he will not, in the future, act in accordance with the law, or with honesty, integrity and in the public interest.

40At first blush, a criminal record dating back to 1981 with the last entry in 2007 may not be seen as indicative of future behaviour. However, with the exception of a breach of a release condition and the possession of burglary tools, the appellant’s record consists of crimes of dishonesty. This combined with his more recent HTA record for driving while suspended and what I find to be his lack of candor while testifying, goes directly to his preparedness to act honestly and in accordance with the law.

41In all the circumstances I find the respondent was met its burden to show there are reasonable grounds to believe the appellant with not act in accordance with the law, or with honesty, integrity and in the public interest.

Order

Pursuant to the authority vested under the provisions of section 13(8) of the Act, I hereby order the registrar to carry out the Proposed Order to refuse registration of the appellant as a gaming assistant.