Appeal from the Notice of Proposed Order to Refuse to Renew a Licence under the Horse Racing Licence Act, 1992, S.O. 1992, Chapter 24 and Regulation as amended.
Between:
Jacqueline Nicole Panko
Appellant
-and-
Registrar under the Alcohol, Cannabis and Gaming
Regulation and Public Protection Act, 1996
Respondent
DECISION
ADJUDICATOR: Laura Hodgson, Member
APPEARANCES:
For the Appellant: Self-Represented
For the Respondent: V. Chan, Counsel
T. Knight, Student at Law
Heard by Videoconference: March 23 and 24, 2022
Overview
1The appellant appeals the respondent’s refusal to renew her horseperson-groom and horseperson-owner licenses under the Horse Racing Licence Act, 1992, S.O. 1992, Chapter 24 (“the Act”).
2For the reasons set out below, the Tribunal confirms the respondent’s proposed refusal. Given the totality of the appellant’s conduct, the Tribunal finds there are reasonable grounds to believe that, as a licensee under the Act, she will not act in accordance with the law or with integrity and honesty, or in the public interest. Further, in the circumstances of this case, conditions are not appropriate.
Background
3The appellant has been licensed as a groomer and owner under the Act since 2010. She testified that she has worked with horses all of her life and is knowledgeable and passionate about this vocation. The appellant applied to renew her groomer and owner licenses in April of 2019 and again in May of 2021. The respondent issued a Notice of Proposed Order to Refuse (“NOP”) to renew the licenses on August 10, 2021. The respondent alleges that the appellant failed to properly disclose outstanding animal welfare charges on the renewal applications. Based on this, the nature of the alleged offences and compliance issues during the investigation the respondent submits there are reasonable grounds to refuse the appellant’s licenses. The appellant appeals from this NOP.
Animal Welfare Investigation and Charges
4On January 9, 2019, the appellant was charged with two counts of permitting an animal to be in distress and two counts of failure to comply with prescribed standards of care under sections 18.1(1)(c) and 18.1(1)(b) of the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act (OSPCA).
5The charges originated with a complaint to the Oakville and Milton Humane Society. The complainant was the owner of a standardbred horse named Barber. The owner had just removed Barber from the appellant’s care because of her concern about his condition.
6Caitlin Jones, Manger of Animal Protective Services at the Oakville and Milton Humane Society and an agent under the OSPCA, received the complaint on September 27, 2018. Ms. Jones had been employed by the Humane Society for 11 years and has specialized training in equine welfare.
7Ms. Jones attended Barber’s new boarding location that same day. She assessed the horse and described him as having visible ribs and spine, protruding hips and being “skeletal and underweight”. She stated that his face was visibly sunken, lifeless and he appeared to have excessive fur loss. The respondent entered various photos of Barber as exhibits.
8Ms. Jones observed the horse eating and was advised by the owner that he had been consuming continuously since being removed from the appellant’s care. She was told that Barber had boarded with the appellant for the past year. Based on her observations, Ms. Jones issued an order for an examination of Barber by a veterinarian.
9Ms. Jones spoke to the vet responsible for the initial assessment, Dr. Rojman, on October 1, 2018. The vet indicated that, based on his initial examination, the horse had a heart murmur and overgrown teeth that needed to be “floated” (i.e., filed down). Ms. Jones explained that improper teeth care can impact a horse’s ability to eat efficiently.
10That same day Ms. Jones and an Officer from the Humane Society attended the appellant’s property to speak with her. They did not notify the appellant in advance of their visit. At the property, Ms. Jones identified herself to the appellant, set out the concerns with respect to Barber and asked to conduct an onsite examination pursuant to the OSPCA.
11Ms. Jones testified that, during this visit, she observed approximately twenty horses. They were housed both in a large barn and in exterior paddocks. They had access to food and water and there appeared to be adequate shelter. Ms. Jones observed that a number of horses appeared thin “but not alarmingly so”. Ms. Jones did note preliminary concerns with respect to two horses housed in the barn; Billy who was on stall rest because of a knee injury and Casper who had a “suspensory issue” from racing.
12The appellant, who lived in a trailer on the property, advised Ms. Jones that she owned most of the horses but that two were boarders. There were other horses on the property belonging to other tenants. With respect to the horse Barber that had been recently removed, the appellant stated he had been sick with cholic twice in the past year.
13Ms. Jones described the appellant as “rushed but cooperative”. Ms. Jones felt she was unable to conduct a thorough assessment because the appellant needed to leave for work. When Ms. Jones inquired about the number of animals, the appellant indicated that the investigators had seen all of her animals. Ms. Jones noted that the appellant appeared reluctant to schedule a time for a more fulsome assessment.
14On October 10, 2018, Ms. Jones received a medical update on Barber. Dr. Rojman advised her that the horse was thin and scored a two out of nine on the ‘Equine Body Condition Scoring’. Ms. Jones explained that this is a scale to determine the horse condition with the optimum score being five. Dr. Rojman reported that the horse had an enlarged sheath, a heart murmur causing mouth ulcers and “beans” in the penis area. Ms. Jones testified that, according to Dr. Rojman, the horse was in “need of care” and had been “in distress” for at least two weeks prior. Dr. Rojman did not testify at the hearing nor were any of his reports submitted into evidence by the respondent.
15Ms. Jones spoke to the appellant on October 11, 2018, and the appellant agreed to a second property visit that day. According to Ms. Jones, during that call, the appellant also confirmed that, other than the horses seen, cats and three dogs, she had no other animals on the property.
16At this second visit the appellant provided more information with respect to the horses Billy and Casper. Ms. Jones did a “walk through” and a “hands-on assessment” of a number of the horses in the paddocks and main barn. She again noted that they all had access to food, water, and shelter. On a number of occasions Ms. Jones indicated that the animals on the property that belonged to other owners appeared to be in better condition than the animals in the appellant’s care.
17While walking from the main barn on the property, Ms. Jones observed a donkey sticking his head out of a window of a smaller barn on the property. The existence of this animal had not been disclosed to Ms. Jones.
18Upon observing the donkey, Ms. Jones asked to see the appellant’s animals housed in this barn. The appellant consented and first showed her a stall housing one miniature horse (a mini) named Monster. According to Ms. Jones, Monster appeared “very thin”. Ms. Jones testified that, at this time, she asked if there were more animals and the appellant stated no. Ms. Jones then asked to see what was in the second stall of the small barn. The appellant consented and she was shown more miniature horses.
19Ms. Jones was unable to do a hands-on assessment of these animals or view inside the stalls. The appellant advised her that the minis were “not social”. She agreed to bring some of them outside on a lead and Ms. Jones noted that they immediately wanted to feed on nearby grass.
20Ms. Jones testified that she then had to specifically request to also see what was in the third stall of the small barn. Before opening the stall door, the appellant warned, “now this one is very old”. Ms. Jones described “Potato”, the donkey in the stall, as a “walking skeleton”. He had visible hip and rib points, burrs knotted in his mane and tail and fecal matter on his tail and backside. She noted he was lethargic, unstable and had “milky eyes”. Ms. Jones indicated that she was concerned about the donkey’s overall condition. Photographs of Potato were made an exhibit at the hearing.
21The appellant advised Ms. Jones that the donkey was 30 years old and had not recently been seen by a vet. The appellant also advised Ms. Jones that the donkey would, perhaps, be euthanized in the winter.
22At this visit, after having been cautioned about any comments being used as evidence, the appellant further discussed her care of Barber. She indicated that he was a “stressed animal” and came with an “anxiety goat” for company. The appellant indicated that she provided Barber with gastro supplements and a daily dewormer. She again noted that the horse had cholic twice the past summer. The appellant confirmed that the horse had not been seen by a vet while in her care.
23As a result of this second visit, Ms. Jones issued two compliance orders requiring Monster (the mini) and Potato (the donkey) to be seen by a vet. Ms. Jones also issued two orders with respect to all the appellant’s equine animals. One required proper provision of hay to promote “health and vigor” and prevent aggression. The second required that all the equine animals have burrs removed to prevent skin and eye irritation.
24Ms. Jones testified that, before leaving, another tenant on the property advised her that the appellant had been asked to leave and would be moving soon. This prompted Ms. Jones to highlight to the appellant that, as set out in the order, the investigator should be notified if any of the animals were moved from their current location.
25On October 16, 2018, Ms. Jones spoke to a vet, Dr. Stevenson, who attended, as per the October 11, 2018 orders, to assess the mini and the donkey. Dr. Stevenson indicated that she had attended that same day and observed both animals to be ‘thin’. She ranked the mini as a 3 or 4 on the Equine Body Condition Scoring and the donkey to be a 3. Potato, the donkey had an infected molar so was prescribed pain medication and teeth care treatment. As a result of this information, Ms. Jones issued another compliance order. The conditions matched the treatment recommendations made by Dr. Stevenson and required the appellant to provide Ms. Jones with all feed receipts.
26On October 31, 2018, Ms. Jones again attended the appellant’s property to “follow up” with respect to compliance orders issues. The appellant’s trailer was no longer on the property and none of her animals could be seen. Ms. Jones was advised by another tenant that the appellant had recently moved, and her new address was not known. On November 2, Ms. Jones left a voice mail with the appellant indicating she was concerned about the animals being moved and that this was potentially a breach of the orders. She asked the appellant to provide her new address and to arrange a time for another meeting. The appellant responded indicating that she was unavailable, as she was travelling for work. She did not, however, provide Ms. Jones her new address until November 13, 2018.
27After receiving the new address and with the appellant’s agreement, Ms. Jones attended the address on November 13, 2018. She conducted a “walk through” of the new property with the appellant. She observed that, generally, the animals looked better. Many had burrs removed, there was food and water available. With respect to Potato the donkey, Ms. Jones noted some improvement in his condition and that his fur had grown back.
28Ms. Jones was told that two of the horses, that had previously been under the appellant’s care and were subject to compliance orders, had been relocated. Ms. Jones advised the appellant that those animals were still subject to the compliance orders and that she should have been advised that they were moved.
29Ms. Jones described the appellant as “kind” and indicated that she was compliant but “only when asked”. She noted that the appellant was not forthcoming with respect to certain aspects of the investigation. According to Ms. Jones the appellant ultimately complied with all conditions except for not providing feed receipts after January 2019 and relocating animals without notice.
30On December 18, 2018, Ms. Jones received a medical update with respect to both Potato the donkey and Barber the horse. Ms. Jones was told that Potato remained too thin to receive the sedation necessary to treat his abscessed tooth. With respect to Barber, Ms. Jones was advised that, compared to his condition in September, he now looked like a different horse. Dr. Rojman confirmed that, based on his initial examination, Barber had received inadequate care for at least two weeks, and he speculated possibly up to six months prior.
31As a result of her investigation and the medical information received about these two specific animals, Ms. Jones laid the following four charges under the OSPCA:
Being the owner or custodian of an animal, permit the animal to be in distress contrary to section 11.2(2) of the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, RSO, 1990, c. 36, as amended, and thereby did commit an offence contrary to Section 18.1(1)(c) of the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, RSO 199, c. 0.36, as amended (two counts)
Being the person who owns or has custody of an animal, fail to comply with the prescribed standards of care for such animal contrary to Section 11.1(1) of the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, RSO 1990, c .36, as amended, to wit, fail to provide the care necessary for its general welfare, as required by Ontario regulation 60/09 s. 2(1), and thereby commit an offence contrary to section 18.1(1)( b) of the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, RSO Chapter 0.36 as amended (two counts)
32Ms. Jones noted that the animal welfare legislation provides the bare minimum standard of care required. A summons was personally served on the appellant on January 22, 2019. At the time of this hearing these charges remained outstanding.
33The appellant testified that in September of 2018 she had “roughly” 28 equine animals under her care as well as one goat, one cat and three dogs. She cared for the animals with some assistance from her boyfriend who lived with her. In addition to owning and boarding horses, the appellant worked part time at the Mohawk racetrack as an assistant paddock judge. She also worked parttime at another private horse barn. The appellant testified that she would feed and care for her animals in the early morning before leaving for work. According to the appellant, caring for 28 horses and other pets was “not overly difficult”. The appellant agreed that more attention is required if an animal has medical issues. She indicated that she stayed updated on horse care by reading online and consulting vets when necessary. The appellant rejected the suggestion that she was incapable of looking after so many animals.
34The appellant was asked about a horse named Ok Chaos that was removed from her care in May of 2020. The appellant testified that the horse was removed by the Ontario Standard Adoption Society because of the outstanding OSPCA charges. The appellant testified that the horse was examined by a vet shortly before it was removed.
35With respect to the horse Barber, the appellant testified that she felt his cholic was manageable and could be treated without consulting a vet. The appellant noted that he was an anxious horse. With respect to both Barber and his therapy goat, the appellant testified that they were not in great condition when they came to her. She also noted that Barber did not tolerate the summer heat well. The appellant testified that she had planned to consult a vet with respect to Barber’s weight loss, but the horse was removed before she could do so. The appellant agreed that she had not contacted the owner to discuss Barber’s condition.
36According to the appellant, 30-year-old Potato was exceptionally old for a donkey. She noted that old horses can “go down hill” very quickly. The appellant indicated that she had concerns about his weight loss and visible rib cage at the end of the summer of 2018. While she had contacted a vet, they had been unable to visit.
37With respect to the investigation, the appellant disagreed that Ms. Jones was rushed through the first visit. She did note that she had a work commitment and thought she could quickly complete the inspection before leaving. The appellant agreed that, at the first visit, she did not show the inspector 10 animals that were under her care. With respect to the second visit, the appellant denied saying there were no other animals when asked.
38In the appellant’s view she complied with all conditions of the orders except for the one requiring notification when animals were relocated. It was her understanding, that she was only prohibited from moving the horses that were under specific orders - Barber and Potato. In cross examination, the appellant agreed that the wording of the orders did, in fact, require her to report the movement of any of the equine animals on the property. The appellant agreed that she had not notified Ms. Jones where she was moving or that two of her boarded horses had been taken from her care. She was ultimately able to give Ms. Jones the new address of one of the horses (“Pickles”) but was unable to tell her where the whereabouts of another horse (“Stevie”). With respect to feed receipts, the appellant indicated that she provided receipts up until January of 2019 when charges were laid. She explained that some were missing because she had been gifted some feed.
39The appellant acknowledged that she was served with a summons that set out the charges against her on January 22, 2019. She attended court in person on March 1, 2019 and received disclosure from the Crown. The appellant testified that she later gave this disclosure package to her paralegal. She had difficulty getting it back after they parted on poor terms.
40The appellant filed letters of support from a co-worker, a veterinarian and a customer who had boarded their horse with the appellant. The letters noted that the appellant was a conscientious groom and that there was no concern with her care of animals. A former boarder and friend of the appellant testified at the hearing. He indicated that he never had concerns with the appellant’s care of his horse. He attended her stables regularly and saw no issues with respect to fresh water or feed. The witness was aware of the general nature of the charges. He was surprised by them because he had known the appellant for a long time and did not believe that she would ever let an animal suffer. The witness also noted that the appellant had suffered from the gossip generated by the investigation and charges.
Licence Renewal Applications
41The appellant completed an application for renewal in May 2019. At that time, the application was in paper format and, among other things, asked: “Do you have any charges pending in any jurisdiction?”. The appellant checked the “no” box on this application. The appellant agreed that she erred in not disclosing her outstanding charges. She testified that she simply filled out the form as she usually did. The appellant acknowledged that she did not ask for any assistance in completing the form.
42In September of 2020 the appellant was contacted by an investigator at the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario (AGCO). Together, they reviewed the outstanding charges and the investigator noted that the appellant appeared to give “straight answers”. With respect to the 2019 application, the appellant agreed with the investigator that she had completed it incorrectly.
43In May 2021 the appellant again applied for renewal of her horseperson groom and owner licenses. The applications were now in electronic format and the wording of the questions had been slightly modified. In a separate section, applicants were asked:
i. Have you ever been charged, found guilty and/or convicted of any offence
under any legislation in any jurisdiction? This includes any absolute and/or
conditional discharges, withdrawn charges, suspended sentences, convictions,
fines or guilty pleas.
- Do you have any outstanding charges (including appearance notices and/or summons(es)) that are still before the courts in any jurisdiction?
Note: This includes ALL federal and provincial offences.
Please provide the following information:
Alleged offence
Court appearance date and jurisdiction
44On this application, the appellant responded “no” to question 1. To question 2 the applicant responded “yes”, and wrote: “Failing to have a vet out in a timely manner Date to be scheduled Halton Hills”.
45The appellant explained that she didn’t have the disclosure documents at that time and completed the form the best she could. She did not consider calling Ms. Jones or inquiring at the courthouse about the exact charges. When pressed, the appellant agreed that her answer did not provide clear indication of what she was charged with.
46The manager of Horse Racing Admissions (HRA) with the AGCO, Lisa Hocking, testified that the Act is meant to protect the public, horses, and individuals who make a living from horse racing. She explained that the horse racing industry in Ontario is highly regulated because it employs thousands of people and involves thousands of horses and is responsible to the betting public. She explained that there are different classes of licence. A groom is a horse custodian and responsible for the day-to-day care and general health of the animal. An owner can own all or part of a racing horse. A race horse is a horse that has raced in the last 60 days and is considered to be an ‘elite athlete’ that requires significant care.
47The HRA manager indicated that the appellant did not complete the 2019 or 2021 applications accurately. With respect to the most recent application, she stated that one answer was false and there was only partial disclosure with respect to another question. The appellant provided inadequate information for the AGCO to follow up and, in her view, was misleading with respect to the nature of the charges. The manager testified that this speaks to the appellant’s honesty and integrity and ability to comply with the law
48More generally, the HRA manager was concerned with the nature of the charges, and the appellant’s compliance with the investigation. In her view the appellant had been dishonest about the number of animals on her property and relocated animals without giving proper notice.
49When asked about the appropriateness of imposing conditions on the appellant’s licence, the manager indicated that reporting conditions require the applicant to proactively provide information. The applicant had not demonstrated that she would do this. Further, in her view, given the nature of the outstanding charges, and the reputation of the industry, conditions were inappropriate.
50The manager was called to provide reply evidence with respect to the appellant allegedly not having the requisite licence to work at the racetrack. I give this evidence limited weight. As noted by the appellant, her employer has never questioned her credentials and required an additional licence. Further, the respondent was fully aware that the appellant worked at the racecourse (the AGCO investigator was told this in 2020). There was no reason for the respondent to split their case and raise concerns with respect to the appellant’s workplace licensing after concluding their evidence.
Law and Analysis
51Horse racing is a regulated industry in Ontario. The purpose of the Act is to regulate the operation of racetracks and off-site betting in Ontario. Regulation is accomplished in part by restricting participation in the industry to those who are licensed (see 11849 v Registrar of Alcohol, Gaming and Racing, 2019 CanLII 83602 (ON LAT)). Licensees must be aware of and comply with the Act, and act with honesty and integrity and in the public interest.
52The Registrar shall issue a notice of proposed order to refuse a licence if there are reasonable grounds to believe that, when acting as a licensee, the applicant will not act in accordance with the law, or with integrity, honesty, or in the public interest having regard to his or her past conduct (s. 14 (a), s. 20 of the Act).
53In Ontario (Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario) v. 751809 Ontario Inc., 2013 ONCA 157, the Ontario Court of Appeal found that, as a standard of proof, ‘reasonable grounds for belief’ is lower than ‘balance of probabilities.’ It requires more than mere suspicion and an objective basis for the belief which is based on compelling and credible information. The Court of Appeal also noted that, when looking at past conduct, the Registrar is entitled to look at conduct outside of the four corners of the licence, which includes both criminal and noncriminal conduct.
54In these circumstances, the respondent has established the necessary grounds to refuse the appellant a licence as a groom or owner and the Tribunal confirms the refusals. The appellant’s outstanding animal welfare charges, failure to fully comply with the Humane Society investigation and inadequate disclosure on the HRLA applications together demonstrate a failure to follow the law or act with honesty and integrity as required by the legislation. One of these factors, in isolation, perhaps may not meet the threshold. The totality of the circumstances, however, establish a reasonable basis for the licenses to be refused.
55The nature of the outstanding charges is clearly of significant concern. The applicant is currently before the courts on four charges under the OSPCA relating to animal welfare. The outstanding charges alone, do not establish that the alleged conduct occurred. As noted, the Respondent did not call any expert evidence and no veterinarian reports were before the Tribunal. The Tribunal does have discretion to receive hearsay evidence under s.15 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act. The investigator with the Humane Society, provided extensive evidence on the condition of specific animals in the appellant’s care. I found her to be a credible witness not prone to exaggeration. She fairly noted that, in many respects the appellant took proper care of animals in her custody. Ms. Jones did, however, testify that Barber and Potato were underweight, requiring medical attention and, based on information she received from the veterinarians, the appellant had failed to meet the prescribed standards of care.
56In her testimony before the Tribunal, the appellant presented as being passionate about and knowledgeable of equine care. She provided letters of support from a boarder, vet and co-worker who had no concerns with her treatment and care of horses. I also note that the appellant had been licensed under the HRLA since 2010 without issue.
57With respect to the care of Barber, however, the appellant appeared to minimize her responsibility for his condition. She, instead, deflected blame on the owner. The appellant agreed that she made no effort to call the owner to discuss the animal’s condition and medical needs. The horse was never seen by a vet while under the appellant’s care. With respect to the donkey Potato, the appellant appeared to recognize that he required medical care yet took no steps to provide this.
58The care of Barber and Potato is directly related to the appellant’s licensing as a groom and owner where she is responsible for the ongoing care and control of equine animals. The appellant’s failure to provide the requisite care for these animals, in conjunction with the compliance issues noted below, demonstrate that, that as a licensee, the appellant will not act with integrity or in the public interest.
59The appellant’s response to aspects of the Humane Society investigation is also troubling. The appellant was understandably flustered when the investigator arrived unannounced on her property on September 27, 2018. Given that the appellant was leaving for work, it is reasonable that the investigator felt “rushed”. What is not acceptable, however, is that the appellant was not truthful with respect to the number of animals under her care at that time. Before the Tribunal, the appellant agreed that she failed to show the investigator 10 equine animals at that visit. The appellant’s behaviour at the second visit was also less than forthright. She only showed the inspector the animals in the second barn, including Potato the donkey, when specifically asked.
60The respondent did not establish that the appellant failed to provide feed receipts as required. The inspector ultimately agreed with the appellant that receipts were provided up until the time the charges were laid. The respondent, did however, establish that the appellant failed to comply with the condition of the order requiring consent before animals were moved. The appellant relocated two horses and then moved herself and all of her animals to a new location without advising the Humane Society Inspector. She did this, knowing she was under active investigation.
61The appellant testified that she did not understand that the order requiring her to give notice of movement applied to all of her equine animals. I appreciate that this condition, with respect to moving animals, is not clearly set out in the orders. It is part of the ‘boiler plate’ instructions rather than clearly enumerated with other conditions. Nonetheless, in the circumstances, the appellant is expected to fully read, understand and follow all conditions of the order. If she did not understand any requirements she should have inquired.
62The appellant was not forthright or responsive during the investigation by the Humane Society and did not fully comply with imposed conditions. As a result, I conclude that the appellant will not, when acting as a licensee, act in accordance with the law.
63Lastly, the appellant’s failure to fully disclose the outstanding charges on two separate HRLA applications demonstrates a failure to follow the law or act with honesty and integrity as required by the legislation. Only months after being charged with the OSPCA offences the applicant responded “no” to a question about pending charges on the 2019 application.
64This error was highlighted to the appellant when she spoke to an AGCO inspector in the fall of 2020. Despite this, the applicant again failed to fully detail the charges on the 2021 application. When asked to provide specific information with respect to the alleged offences, the appellant provided the vague description; “failure to have a vet out in a timely manner.” In response to the application’s specific request for court appearance date and jurisdiction, the applicant simply responded, “date to be scheduled, Halton Hills”.
65At the hearing, the applicant explained that she did not have access to her disclosure materials at the time she completed the 2021 application. Nonetheless, and despite the fact that the technical charges as written would not easily be understood by a lay person, the applicant was required to list the actual charges and the next court date and location. She failed to do this. In cross-examination, the appellant agreed that, on the application, she did not give a clear indication of the charges.
66As noted in 8017 v Registrar, Collection Agencies Act, 2013 ONLAT 51149, “the application form is a first test of integrity.” Providing correct information about outstanding offences also enables the AGCO to effectively investigate the allegations and understand their impact, if any, on licensing under the HRLA. As an owner or groom person, the applicant would be expected to diligently comply with all administrative obligations. It is not clear that she would. The appellant’s failure to fully disclose outstanding offences on the two HRLA applications provides reasonable grounds to believe that the applicant would not follow the law or act with honesty and integrity as required by the legislation.
Conditions
67I gave close consideration to the application of conditions in the circumstances of this case. As noted, the applicant presented as passionate about horses and knowledgeable of their care. She has a long employment history in the industry and had been licensed for over a decade without issue. The applicant is, however, now before the courts on industry related, animal welfare charges. Further, she failed to fully comply with the Humane Society investigation and was not forthright on her HRLA applications. Given the nature of the charges and compliance and application issues, there is no indication that conditions could sufficiently ensure that the appellant acts with honesty and integrity and complies with the law.
ORDER
68The Tribunal finds that the totality of the appellant’s past conduct gives reason to believe that she will not, when acting as a licensee, act in accordance with the law or with integrity, honesty, or in the public interest. The Tribunal confirms the Registrar’s proposals to refuse to issue the licenses.
LICENCE APPEAL TRIBUNAL
__________________
Laura Hodgson
Released: May 26, 2022