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
Appeal from a Notice of Proposed Order of the Registrar of Alcohol, Cannabis, Gaming and Racing, Gaming Control Act 1992, c.24 to Refuse Registration
Between:
Marjorie (Jorie) McKenzie Appellant
and
Registrar of Alcohol, Cannabis, Gaming and Racing Respondent
DECISION AND ORDER
Adjudicator: Patricia McQuaid, Vice-Chair
Appearances:
For the Appellant: Self-represented
For the Respondent: Aviva Harari, Counsel
Heard in Toronto: January 14, 2020
REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDER
OVERVIEW
1On August 26, 2019, the appellant, Marjorie (Jorie) McKenzie applied, on line, for registration as a Category 2 gaming assistant under the Gaming Control Act (the “Act”). Ms McKenzie had received an offer of employment to work as a guest experience coordinator at Woodbine Casino. The offer of employment is conditional on registration by the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario (“AGCO”). As part of the application process, Ms McKenzie completed a Disclosure Report, also on line.
2The AGCO reviewed the application and determined that there were discrepancies between the information provided by the appellant in her application and information obtained by the AGCO through their investigation. As a result, the AGCO had concerns about the appellant’s eligibility for registration under the Act, relating both to her lack of disclosure and her past conduct, in particular, her record of convictions under the Criminal Code between 1992 and 2017, as revealed through their investigation. On October 3, 2019, the Registrar issued a Notice of Proposed Order to refuse registration (the ‘Proposed Order”) on the basis that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the appellant will not act as a gaming assistant in accordance with the law, or with integrity, honesty or in the public interest, based on her past conduct.
3Ms McKenzie appealed the Proposed Order to the Licence Appeal Tribunal (the “Tribunal”) by Notice of Appeal received October 7, 2019. Though she does not dispute the fact of her convictions, she disagrees that these indicate that she will not, in the future, act in accordance with the law and with integrity and honesty, and in the public interest.
ISSUE
4The 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 she 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, as set out in s. 11 of the Act.
5The Registrar has the burden of proving that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the appellant is not entitled to registration. This is a lower standard of proof than the ‘balance of probabilities, but there must be an objective basis for the belief that is based on compelling and credible evidence: Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario v. 751809 Ontario Inc. (Famous Flesh Gordon’s) 2013 ONCA 157.
RESULT
6After carefully considering the evidence and submissions, and for the reasons set out below, I confirm the Proposed Order to refuse the appellant’s registration.
EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS
7The issue in this hearing has two aspects. The first deals with an alleged lack of full disclosure by the appellant on her application for registration. The second relates to her past conduct, specifically her criminal record.
The disclosure issue
8Three witnesses testified at the hearing: Sgt. Thomas Kaudelka and Gary White from the AGCO and the appellant, Ms McKenzie.
9Mr. White is the senior manager of eligibility at the AGCO and leads the team responsible for the registration of persons working within the gaming sector, including gaming assistants. The application for registration is the AGCO’s first contact with an individual and it puts a great deal of weight on the answers provided, and particularly on the Disclosure Report completed as part of the application process. Mr. White testified that a lack of full disclosure directly impacts their assessment of an individual’s honesty and integrity.
10Question 1 on the Disclosure Report reads: “Have you ever been charged, found guilty and/or convicted of any offence in any jurisdiction? This includes any absolute and or conditional discharges, withdrawn charges, suspended sentences, convictions, fines or guilty pleas.” The appellant responded “yes”. She then provided information, with the detail requested, for one conviction: a Highway Traffic Act (“HTA”) offence- driving with a handheld device, in December 2016.
11Mr. White explained that upon receipt of an application, the eligibility officer assigned to the file will, as standard practice, collect further information which includes a Canadian Police Information Centre (CPIC) check as well as a check of Ministry of Transportation (“MTO”) records for HTA offences. On the application form, an applicant is asked to provide consent for the CPIC check, which Ms McKenzie did. The MTO record revealed multiple HTA offences, but more significantly, the CPIC check revealed 16 conviction dates between 1992 and 2017, with more than one charge and/or conviction on some of those dates. None of these Criminal Code offences and convictions had been disclosed.
12It appears that the eligibility officer made some inquiries of Ms McKenzie for additional financial information, which was provided by her. Whether she was asked for further explanation about the convictions was unclear, based on the documents before me, however, by September 5, 20