Oral Stimpson v. Registrar, Horse Racing Licence Act, 2015, 2023 CanLII 52273

Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 14796/HRLA

In the matter of an appeal under section 20 of the Horse Racing Licence Act, 2015, S.O. 2015, c. 38, Sched. 9, from a Notice of Proposal to Refuse to Issue a Licence under the Act.

Between:

Oral Stimpson

Appellant

and

Registrar, Horse Racing Licence Act, 2015

Respondent

DECISION

VICE-CHAIR: Colin Osterberg

APPEARANCES:

For the Appellant: Joseph Osuji, Counsel

For the Respondent: Rena Khan, Counsel

HEARD: May 26, 2023

OVERVIEW

1Oral Stimpson, the appellant, seeks to appeal from a Notice of Proposal (“NOP”) to Refuse to issue a licence as a Horseperson (“Notice of Proposal”) under the Horse Racing Licence Act, 2015, S.O. 2015, c. 38, Sched. 9 (the "Act”).

2The Notice of Proposal was issued on February 7, 2022 and was sent to the appellant by email and regular mail. The appellant failed to appeal to the Tribunal within 15 days of the NOP and the Final Order refusing the appellant’s application for a licence was issued on May 13, 2022. It was also sent to the appellant by email and regular mail. The Notice of Appeal was filed on April 4, 2023.

3Section 20(3) of the Act provides that appeals must be delivered to the Registrar and the Tribunal in writing within 15 days after the NOP is served on the appellant. The Notice of Appeal was filed more than a year after the expiry of the 15-day appeal period and so the appellant brought this motion to extend the time for filing an appeal.

RESULT

4I find that the justice of the case does not warrant an extension of the time for filing the appeal and the appellant’s motion is denied.

ANALYSIS

5Section 7 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Act, 1999, S.O. 1999, c. 12, Sch G gives the Tribunal the discretion to grant an extension of time where there are reasonable grounds for applying for the extension and for granting relief.

6In Manuel v. Registrar of Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002, 2012 ONSC 1492, the Divisional Court ruled that, on a motion to extend the time to appeal, the overriding consideration is whether the justice of the case requires that the extension be granted. The factors to be considered in making that determination are:

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.

7I have considered the evidence relating to each of these factors as they apply to this case.

Bona fide intention to appeal within the appeal period

8I am not satisfied that the appellant had an intention to appeal within the appeal period.

9The appellant admits that he received the NOP in the spring of 2022. Counsel for the Registrar says that about 10 days after the NOP was emailed to the appellant in February 2022, the appellant contacted the Alcohol and Gaming Commission (“AGCO”) asking about the NOP and that on March 15, 2022, a person identifying herself as the appellant’s paralegal contacted the AGCO and quoted the NOP and the NOP number.

10The appellant says he did not appeal the NOP at that time because he was depressed and was worried that the allegations against him were so serious that he might experience retribution from the police if he responded. He also says he wanted to conduct research before responding to the NOP.

11I find that the appellant did not have an intention to appeal the NOP within the 15-day appeal period. Rather, he received the NOP, investigated his options, and decided not to appeal. He gave no explanation for his belief that he might experience retribution from the police if he appealed the NOP and he appears to have been represented by a paralegal in the spring of 2022 when he made the decision not to appeal.

12The fact that the appellant chose not to appeal the NOP within the appeal period, but to wait until recently to do so, weighs significantly against his motion to extend the time to appeal.

Length of the delay

13As noted above, despite receiving notice that the NOP had been issued in February 2022, the appellant did not appeal until April 2023. The length of the delay is significant in the circumstances.

Prejudice

14The Registrar argues that, unless there are compelling reasons, the public interest requires that deadlines for appeals be enforced. Where, as here, the appellant’s delay is unreasonable and unjustified, the public interest is prejudiced by allowing the appeal to proceed. Further, the Registrar says that it is only entitled to conduct background investigations with respect to an applicant when there is an ongoing application. In this case, a Final Order has been issued and there is no ongoing application. The Registrar is therefore concerned that it would not be entitled to conduct a thorough investigations should the extension be granted.

15I find that, in addition to the above concerns, the public interest and the administration of the regulatory scheme requires that there be some finality to decisions made by the Registrar. The Legislature has imposed a 15-day period in which a NOP may be appealed, and that period should not be extended without adequate justification.

16I find that an extension of the appeal period in the circumstances would result in prejudice to the Registrar and is contrary to the public interest.

The merits of the appeal

17On a motion to extend time, the appellant need not establish his case on a balance of probabilities but only that his version of events, if believed, could reasonably result in a favourable outcome. It is up to the appellant to demonstrate that he has a reasonable chance of success by offering some clear and specific evidence he would put forward at a hearing to support his position.

18Section 14 of the Act requires that the issuance of a licence be refused if there are reasonable grounds to believe that the applicant will not act in accordance with the law, or with integrity, honesty, or in the public interest, having regard to the past conduct of the applicant. If there are such grounds, then the appeal will fail. Reasonable grounds for belief is a lower standard of proof than a balance of probabilities but requires more than mere suspicion. It will be found to exist where there is an objective basis for the belief which is based on compelling and credible information.

19The NOP is based on a number of criminal charges against the appellant and his failure to disclose the existence of those charges when asked in the Disclosure Report he was required to complete with his application. The charges include an impaired driving charge in 2021, a criminal harassment charge in 2020, a failure to comply with a condition of release relating to the harassment charge, and a conviction for assault in 2021.

20The appellant did not deny that the charges took place but did deny that he had been convicted of any offences relating to those charges. He does admit that there was a peace bond issued with respect to a domestic incident.

21Although not necessarily determinative, the charges against the appellant are evidence that there is reason to believe that he will not act in accordance with the law. His failure to disclose the charges in his application is evidence that he will not act with honesty or integrity.

22The appellant did not present evidence to suggest that there were extenuating circumstances leading to the charges against him, that he has taken responsibility for his actions or that he has taken steps to ensure that he can be relied on to act in accordance with the law, with honesty and integrity in the future.

23While the bar for showing that the appellant’s appeal has merit is not a high one, I am not satisfied that his appeal has a real chance of success and this factor weighs against extending the appeal period.

Conclusion

24I find that the justice of the case requires that the appellant’s request for an extension be denied. He did not have a bona fide intention to appeal within the appeal period; his delay in filing the appeal is significant and unreasonable and there is little merit in the appeal.

ORDER

25For the reasons set out above, the appellant’s motion to extend the time for filing his appeal is denied.