1965504 Ontario Inc. o/a Best Convenience v. Registrar, Alcohol, Cannabis and Gaming Regulation and Public Protection Act, 1996, 2021 CanLII 28691

Licence Appeal Tribunal

Date: 2021-03-19

Appeal of a Notice of Proposed Order by the Registrar under the Alcohol, Cannabis and Gaming Regulation and Public Protection Act, 1996, pursuant to the Gaming Control Act, R.S.O. 1992, c.24 – to Refuse Registration as a Seller

Between:

1965504 Ontario Inc. o/a Best Convenience Appellant

and

Registrar, Alcohol, Cannabis and Gaming Regulation and Public Protection Act, 1996 Respondent

RECONSIDERATION ORDER

ADJUDICATOR: D. Stephen Jovanovic

APPEARANCES:

For the Appellant: Ibrahim Tageddine

Heard by way of written submissions

1Ibrahim Tageddine, is the president of 1965504 Ontario Inc. o/a Best Convenience, a convenience store located in Windsor, Ontario. He applied for a licence as a seller under the Gaming Control Act, 1992 (“the Act”), with the intention of selling lottery tickets at the convenience store.

2In the Notice of Proposed Order (the Proposal) dated June 1, 2020 the Registrar proposed to refuse the appellant’s registration as a seller. In a decision dated December 30, 2020, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal and confirmed the Proposal.

3In a letter dated January 19, 2021, the appellant requested a reconsideration of the decision.

4The Tribunal’s rules require that a party making a request for reconsideration must deliver its submissions with the request. The only submission made by the appellant was that the paralegal represented him at the hearing before the Tribunal did not allow him to give evidence.

5In reviewing the file, I note that the appellant had retained counsel after the evidence had been presented. The Tribunal provided the parties the opportunity to make additional submissions and the appellant’s counsel did so on December 4, 2020. There was no reference in those submissions to the appellant being denied the opportunity to testify at the hearing. The appellant’s counsel did not submit that the appellant had inadequate or incompetent representation at the hearing before the Tribunal and provided further arguments on the appellant’s behalf. Those submissions, although not made as part of the request for reconsideration, have been considered and are not sufficient to bring the appellant within any of the criteria in rule 18.2 dealing with requests for reconsideration.

6Accordingly, the request for reconsideration of the Tribunal’s decision of December 30, 2020 is dismissed.