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
RECONSIDERATION DECISION
VICE-CHAIR: Colin Osterberg
APPEARANCES:
For the Appellant: Oral Stimpson, Self-Represented
For the Respondent: Rena Khan, Counsel
HEARD: In Writing
OVERVIEW
1In its decision dated June 13, 2023 (the “Motion Decision”), the Tribunal denied the motion brought by Oral Stimpson (the “appellant”) to extend the time for filing his appeal. The appellant requests that the Tribunal reconsider the Motion Decision pursuant to Rule 18.1 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal, Animal Care Review Board, and Fire Safety Commission Common Rules of Practice and Procedure, Version I (October 2, 2017) (the “Tribunal Rules”).
2The Tribunal will not allow a request for reconsideration unless one or more of the criteria listed in Rule 18.2 of the Tribunal Rules are established. Those criteria are:
(a) The Tribunal acted outside its jurisdiction or violated the rules of procedural fairness;
(b) The Tribunal made an error of law or fact such that the Tribunal would likely have reached a different result had the error not been made;
(c) The Tribunal heard false evidence from a party or witness, which was discovered only after the hearing and likely affected the result; or
(d) There is evidence that was not before the Tribunal when rendering its decision, could not have been obtained previously by the party now seeking to introduce it, and would likely have affected the result.
3The onus is on the party requesting reconsideration to satisfy the Tribunal that one of the grounds for reconsideration has been met.
4A reconsideration is not an opportunity to reargue one’s case. Its purpose is to correct errors which are material to the decision made and which would have changed the result had they not been made.
5In its materials filed in support of its request for Reconsideration, the appellant alleges a number of errors made by the Tribunal in its decision. Those alleged errors are as follows:
The Tribunal failed to analyze the appellant’s evidence with respect to the effect his depression had on his ability to appeal within the appropriate time period;
The Tribunal incorrectly applied the criminal standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt when determining whether the appellant’s appeal is meritorious;
The Tribunal erred in law by not considering that the domestic assault charges against the appellant were settled by way of peace bond;
The Tribunal’s conclusion that the charges against the appellant are evidence of a reason to believe the appellant would not carry on business in accordance with the law is an assumption and stereotype against the appellant’s culture and racial background; and
The Tribunal erred by concluding that the appellant had not proven that he had a bona fide intent to appeal within the relevant time period.
ISSUES
6The issue in this reconsideration request is whether the appellant has established one of the grounds listed in Rule 18.2 of the Tribunal Rules.
RESULT
7For the reasons which follow, the appellant’s request for reconsideration is denied.
ANALYSIS
- Effect of depression
8The appellant alleges that the Tribunal failed to analyze the appellant’s evidence with respect to the effect his depression had on his ability to appeal within the appropriate time period. The appellant’s material implies that the failure to conduct this analysis amounts to an error.
9At paragraph 10 of the Motion Decision, the Tribunal notes that the appellant stated that one of the reasons he did not appeal was that he was depressed. In his request for reconsideration, the appellant does not suggest that there was evidence submitted at the hearing with respect to why the appellant’s depression might have prevented him from appealing within the requisite time period. The appellant does not suggest what further analysis of the appellant’s bald allegation about his depression the Tribunal should have conducted or how that analysis might have impacted the result.
10Moreover, the Motion Decision notes at paragraph 10 that the appellant’s evidence was that he specifically decided not to appeal within the appeal period because he wanted to investigate his options before going ahead with the appeal and that he was worried that if he appealed the police would seek retribution against him. In other words, the appellant’s evidence was that he considered whether to appeal and specifically decided not to do so. This evidence is inconsistent with the allegation that he intended to appeal but was prevented from doing so due to his depression.
11I am not satisfied that the Tribunal was in error with respect to its consideration of the appellant’s depression or its impact on his failure to appeal within the time period allowed. I am also not satisfied that the error alleged would likely have resulted in a different decision by the Tribunal.
- The standard applied
12The appellant alleges that Tribunal incorrectly applied the criminal standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt when determining whether the appellant’s appeal is meritorious. The appellant alleges that this was an error.
13In the Motion Decision, the Tribunal states that on 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.
14The Tribunal did not, as the appellant alleged, apply a criminal standard of proof in assessing the merits of the appellant’s appeal. Saying that an appellant’s standard of proof is not a balance of probabilities does not mean the criminal standard of proof applied in this part of the analysis. The Tribunal found that, although the bar of showing that the appeal has merit is not a high one, it was not satisfied that the appeal has a real chance of success. This is the correct standard to be applied and the Tribunal applied it.
15I find that there is no merit to the appellant’s allegation that the wrong standard of proof was applied by the Tribunal in the Motion Decision.
- The peace bond
16The appellant alleges that the Tribunal erred in law by not considering that the domestic assault charges against the appellant were settled by way of peace bond.
17The Tribunal notes that a peace bond was issued at paragraph 20 of its decision. I am not satisfied that the Tribunal failed to consider the peace bond as alleged.
18The appellant does not specify the conclusions the Tribunal should have drawn from the entering of a peace bond by the appellant which might have resulted in a different outcome on the Motion Decision and I am not satisfied that it would have.
19I find that the appellant has failed to establish that the Tribunal made an error in its consideration of the issuance of the peace bond or that the alleged error, had there been one, would have had any impact on the decision made.
- Allegation of stereotyping or racial bias
20The appellant alleges that the Tribunal’s conclusion that the charges against the appellant are evidence of a reason to believe the appellant would not carry on business in accordance with the law is an assumption and stereotype against the appellant’s culture and racial background.
21The appellant presents no support for this allegation. There is no basis for this allegation and no basis to even suggest that the Tribunal had any information about the appellant’s culture or racial background.
22I find that the appellant has failed to establish this as a ground for reconsideration.
- Bona fide intent to appeal
23The appellant alleges that the Tribunal erred by concluding that the appellant had not proven that he had a bona fide intent to appeal within the relevant time period.
24As noted above, the Tribunal found that the appellant specifically decided not to appeal within the appeal period. The Tribunal notes that the appellant’s evidence was that he decided to do research before deciding what to do about the Registrar’s Notice of Proposal and that he decided not to appeal at that time because he was afraid of police retribution.
25I am not satisfied that the Tribunal’s finding was in error. The appellant has presented no additional evidence that was not presented at the hearing or otherwise. As noted above, a reconsideration is not an opportunity to reargue one’s case. The appellant has failed to establish that the Tribunal made an error on this issue.
26I find that the appellant has failed to establish that the Tribunal erred in its consideration of whether the appellant had a bona fide intent to appeal within the appeal period.
Conclusion
27I find that the appellant has not established a ground which entitles him to reconsideration under Rule 18 of the Tribunal Rules.
ORDER
28For the reasons set out above, the appellant’s request for reconsideration is denied.
Released: August 23, 2023
Colin Osterberg
Vice-Chair