Appeal under the Cannabis Licence Act, 2018 from a Proposal of the Registrar, Alcohol, Cannabis and Gaming Regulation and Public Protection Act, 1996 to Refuse an Application
Between:
Nathan Taus
Appellant
-and-
Registrar under the Alcohol, Cannabis and Gaming Regulation and Public Protection Act, 1996,
Respondent
Decision on Motion to Extend Time to File Appeal
ADJUDICATOR:
Katherine Livingstone, Member
APPEARANCES:
For the Appellant:
Self-represented
For the Respondent:
Jordan Stewart, Counsel
Faye Kidman, Counsel
Heard by Teleconference:
November 18, 2021
Overview
1In October 2020, the appellant applied to the respondent for a licence as a cannabis retail manager. On June 11, 2021, the respondent served the appellant with a Notice of Proposal (NOP) to refuse the appellant a licence as a cannabis retail manager, pursuant to the provisions of section 5(6)(b) of the Cannabis Licence Act (the Act). The appellant did not request a hearing on the Proposal within the required 15 days. On July 19, 2021, the respondent served the appellant with the Final Order of refusal.
2On November 3, 2021 the appellant filed a notice of appeal together with a notice of motion to extend the time for filing the appeal.
3The motion hearing came before me on November 18, 2021. During the motion the appellant said he had several emails concerning what he alleged was a related matter that he believed were relevant on the motion. He wished to file them as part of the motion, however he needed some time to collect them. The respondent was not opposed to their admission if they were given an opportunity to provide written submissions on their relevance.
4The motion was completed and I reserved my decision. I allowed the appellant to file the emails before the end of the business day on November 19, 2021, and gave the respondent until November 25, 2021, to decide whether he wished to respond to the additional material by written submissions.
5The appellant filed his additional emails on November 19, 2021, and on November 25, 2021, the respondent advised they would not be providing additional submissions.
Decision
6Having considered the materials filed and the submissions made by the parties, I dismiss the appellant’s request to extend the time to file an appeal.
Analysis
7The Tribunal has jurisdiction to extend the time for filing an appeal pursuant to section 7 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Act, 1999, S.O. 1999, c. 12, Schedule G, which reads:
Despite any limitation of time fixed by or under any Act for the giving of any notice requiring a hearing by the Tribunal under section11 or any other Act, if the Tribunal is satisfied there are reasonable grounds for applying for the extension and for granting relief, it may,
a. Extend the time for giving the notice either before or after the expiration of the limitation of time so limited; and
b. Give the directions that it considers proper as a result of extending the time.
8Determining whether there are reasonable grounds for an extension is not an exact science. In Manuel v. Registrar, Motor Vehicles Act, 2002, the Divisional Court held that the overarching consideration on a motion to extend is whether the “justice of the case” favours an extension.1 The Court held that in determining the issue, the Tribunal ought to consider the following four factors:
- a. The existence of a bona fide intention to appeal within the appeal period.
- b. The length of the delay.
- c. Prejudice to the other party; and
- d. The merits of the appeal.
9The analysis requires a balancing of these factors when applying the facts and the appellant carries the onus of satisfying me that the justice of the case warrants an extension of time. My consideration of each of these factors is made in light of the material before me and the submissions of the parties.
Bona Fide Intention to Appeal
10There is no dispute that the appellant received the NOP. The respondent filed documentation outlining the process of notification to the appellant. On June 11, 2021, a senior law clerk with the respondent sent an email to the appellant asking if they might forward correspondence to him via email. Within minutes the appellant responded that the correspondence could be forwarded. The correspondence, which contained the NOP, was forwarded to him the same day.
11The correspondence included a letter from