Licence Appeal Tribunal
Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 15034/GCA
Appeal from a Notice of Proposed Order from the Registrar of Alcohol, Gaming and Racing under the Gaming Control Act, 1992, to Refuse Registration as a Supplier
Between:
2859065 Ontario Inc. o/a All In One Convenience, 38 Old Kingston Road, Ajax, and All in One Convenience Kingston, 546 Bath Road, Unit 2, Kingston
Appellant
and
Registrar under the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario Act, 2019
Respondent
AMENDED DECISION
ADJUDICATOR:
Jeffery Campbell, Vice-Chair
APPEARANCES:
For the Appellant:
Michael Burokas, Counsel
For the Respondent:
Aviva Harari, Counsel
Brian Haddad, AGCO Student-At-Law
Heard by teleconference:
January 9-10, 2023
BACKGROUND
12859065 Ontario Inc. o/a All In One Convenience, 38 Old Kingston Road, Ajax, and All in One Convenience Kingston, 546 Bath Road, Unit 2, Kingston, (the “Appellant”) is appealing the Notice of Proposed Order dated June 20, 2023 (the “NOP”) under the Gaming Control Act, 1992 (the “Act”) issued by the Registrar under the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario Act, 2019 (“Registrar” or “respondent”).
2The appellant had sought registration as a supplier. While there are four classes of suppliers, the appellant sought the “seller” class of supplier registration that would authorize them to sell lottery tickets. Throughout this decision, I use the terms “seller” and “supplier” to mean the registration sought by the appellant.
3The Registrar takes the position that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the appellant (in this case, the officers and directors of the appellant) will not act as a supplier in accordance with the law, or with integrity, honesty, in the public interest, and/or with financial responsibility because of the past conduct of the appellant and the underreporting of the Application and Disclosure Reports.
LAW
4Under section 4 of the Act and sections 1, 2 and 4 of Ontario Regulation 78/12 (the “Regulation”) made under the Act, a person must register as a supplier in order to sell lottery tickets.
5Under section 10 of the Act, the Registrar shall refuse to register an applicant as a supplier if there are reasonable grounds to believe that the applicant will not act as a supplier in accordance with law, or with integrity, honesty, or in the public interest, having regard to the past conduct of the applicant or persons interested in the applicant; or the officers, directors or partners of the applicant, or persons interested in those officers, directors or partners, in the case of an applicant that is a corporation or partnership.
6Section 13 provides that if the Registrar refuses to grant a registration, the Registrar shall serve notice of a proposed order, together with written reasons, on the applicant, following which the applicant may request a hearing before the Tribunal.
7Section 13(8) provides that after holding a hearing, the Tribunal may (a) confirm or set aside the proposed order or (b) direct the Registrar to take such action as the Tribunal considers the Registrar ought to take to give effect to the purposes of the Act. Section 13(9) provides that the Tribunal may substitute its opinion for that of the Registrar, and s.13(10) provides that the Tribunal may attach such terms to its order or to the registration as it considers appropriate.
8At a hearing before the Tribunal, the onus is on the Registrar to establish the grounds alleged in the NOP.
ISSUES
9The issue at the hearing is:
Has the respondent established reasonable grounds to believe that the appellant will not act as a seller in accordance with the law, or with integrity, honesty, in the public interest, having regard to its past conduct or that of its officers or directors?
RESULT
10For the reasons that follow, I confirm the Notice of Proposal of June 20, 2023.
EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS
11The respondent has established reasonable grounds to believe that the appellant will not act as a seller in accordance with the law, or with integrity, honesty, in the public interest, and/or with financial responsibility, having regard to the past conduct of its officers and directors.
12According to the Court of Appeal in Registrar, Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario v. 751809 Ontario Inc. operating as Famous Flesh Gordon’s, 2013 ONCA 157, once the relevant facts are determined on a balance of probabilities, the issue is whether those facts afford reasonable grounds for belief that the business will not be carried on in accordance with the law and with integrity and honesty.
13The “reasonable grounds to believe” standard requires something more than mere suspicion but less than proof on a balance of probabilities. In other words, the Registrar does not have to show that the conduct of a licensee make it more likely than not that they will not carry on business as required. The Registrar need only show that there are reasonable grounds for belief that their business will not be carried on in accordance with the law and with integrity and honesty.
14According to the Supreme Court of Canada in Mugesera v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2005 SCC 40 at para. 114, reasonable grounds for belief must be more than mere suspicion, and will be found to exist where there is an objective basis for the belief which is based on compelling and credible information.
15Further, there must be a nexus between the past conduct in issue and the appellant’s ability to conduct business as a seller serving the public interest: see CS v Registrar, Real Estate and Business Brokers Act, 2002, 2019 ONSC 1652 (Div. Ct.) at para. 32.
16The appellant applied for registration as a supplier in the class of seller for its convenience stores in Ajax, Ontario and Kingston, Ontario; both named All in One Convenience. At issue in this appeal is the past conduct of directors and officers of the appellant, Warren Abbey (“Mr. Abbey”) and Breanna Abbey (“Ms. Abbey.
17The Registrar submits that both Mr. Abbey’s and Ms. Abbey’s past conduct disentitles the appellant to registration as a seller. The Registrar relies upon their criminal and Highway Traffic Act convictions (“driver convictions”) as well as the underreporting of those convictions on the application for registration as a supplier.
18The facts regarding the criminal convictions and driver convictions were admitted by Mr. Abbey and Ms. Abbey and are not in contention.
Mr. Abbey
Past Conduct
19An investigation conducted on behalf of the Registrar revealed the following criminal convictions of Mr. Abbey:
2005-02-21 Assault BC Suspended Sentence
12 Mos & (16 Days Pre-Sentence Custody) &
Mandatory Prohibition Order Sec. 109 CC
2008-12-04 Mischief Under Suspended Sentence & Probation 12 Mos &
$5000 Discretionary Weapons Prohibition Sec 110 CC for 2 Yrs
2018-05-28 Manslaughter 1 Day (10 Yrs 9 Mos 22 Days Pre-Sentence
Custody) & Mandatory Weapons Prohibition
Sec 109 CC
20The Registrar also submitted Mr. Abbey’s Driver Record in evidence, which reveals driver suspensions for unpaid fines, which were eventually paid such that the suspensions expired or were rescinded. It also shows driver convictions including three speeding, one fail to come to a stop, one improper use of a seat belt assembly and one obscured interior colour coated windows since 2020.
21The Registrar acknowledges that the 2018 conviction for manslaughter was with respect to an incident that occurred in 2004, almost 20 years in the past. However, the Registrar submits that although Mr. Abbey has had no criminal convictions since 2008, he has only had an unsupervised period of good conduct since his release from prison in 2018.
22Mr. Dave Childs, a civilian investigator for the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario (“AGCO”) testified on behalf of the Registrar. Mr. Childs testified that he met with Mr. Abbey on September 23, 2022 for the purpose of an interview. Mr. Childs reported that, in that interview, Mr. Abbey confirmed his criminal convictions.
23Mr. Frank Cuda, Manager of Gaming Eligibility for the AGCO, appearing as a witness on behalf of the Registrar, testified that, even though Mr. Abbey’s last criminal offence was 17 years ago, in 2008, it is important that the public has confidence in the lottery system.
24Counsel for Mr. Abbey submits that he has undergone a successful rehabilitation and has become a model citizen since his release in 2018. He submits that the circumstances which led to Mr. Abbey’s criminality in the past are no longer present.
25Mr. Abbey testified that he was raised by his mother and grandmother in a difficult section of Scarborough, Ontario. In his words, the community in which he was raised was an environment of poverty, drug dealing and gang violence.
26Mr. Abbey testified that, although he was raised in that difficult environment, he takes full responsibility for his past criminal behaviour.
27The evidence shows that in 2004, at the age of 18, Mr. Abbey was arrested for the killing of Simeon Peter for which he was ultimately convicted of manslaughter in 2018 after spending over 10 years and 9 months in custody.
28Mr. Abbey testified that, during his incarceration, he came to realize that he did not want to continue on a criminal trajectory. He testified that, in prison, he concentrated on ‘pro-social’ activities such as being involved in the basketball league, working up to three jobs concurrently, working out, reading, and writing poetry. While in prison he also authored a now-published book titled Honor Thy Brother.
29Mr. Abbey testified that, since his release, he has worked for the John Howard Society as a peer mentor. He also was employed as a peer mentor by Amadeusz, an organization that supports young people who are incarcerated. He testified that he is an honorary member and volunteer of Keep6ix, an organization that connects individuals with troubled youth. Mr. Abbey also participates in podcasts and videos. Currently, as well as being a director and officer of the appellant and working with the appellant stores, Mr. Abbey has enrolled in the Toronto Film School. He testified that he has also been a public speaker, speaking extensively at many venues, advocating against prison life, street life and against gang violence.
30In a letter from Sheena Blake Brown, Ms. Brown advised that she met Mr. Abbey when he was detained at the Toronto East Detention Centre (“TEDC”) while she worked as a teacher with Amadeusz. Ms. Brown advised that, at the TEDC, Mr. Abbey joined the Amadeusz education program and completed a post-secondary program. She wrote that “Mr. Abbey was a positive role mode within our program as well as within the institution”.
31Testifying on behalf of the appellant, Ms. Brown stated that, after his incarceration, Mr. Abbey was involved in Prosper, a program of Amadeusz that assists young people with firearms related charges. She advised that Mr. Abbey became a peer support worker with Prosper and is the “poster boy for her whole organization”.
32In a letter from the John Howard Society, dated May 30, 2023, Caroline Hamlet, Director of Administration, confirmed that Mr. Abbey was employed as a Peer Support Work/Group Facilitator for the Society from September 25, 2029 to August 14, 2020. The first responsibility of that position was to provide counselling support to youth at risk of becoming involved in the criminal justice system.
33It is apparent from the evidence and from his testimony, that Mr. Abbey has had no further criminal involvement since 2008, and has, upon his release, been involved, not only in his own rehabilitation, but also of that of others.
Period of Good Conduct
34As stated, the Registrar submits that Mr. Abbey’s period of unsupervised good conduct is only since his release in 2018, raising the question as to whether this is a sufficient length of time of good conduct in order to ensure that he will conduct himself in accordance with law, or with integrity, honesty, or in the public interest.
35Both the Registrant and the appellant agree that there is no ‘magic number’ with respect to length of time of good conduct, but, rather, each case is specific to its own facts. In the case before me, I find that Mr. Abbey has been on a successful journey of rehabilitation, even since before his release in 2018. He has been involved in charitable work with young offenders, has been gainfully employed and is furthering his education.
36The Registrar points to Mr. Abbey’s driver convictions and suggests that these indicate that he is not an individual who is unable to live within the norms of society. However, the test for not qualifying for registration, in this case is, is Mr. Abbey whether there are reasonable grounds to believe that the applicant will not act as a seller in accordance with the law, or with integrity, honesty, or in the public interest, having regard to Mr. Abbey’s past conduct. The test is not whether Mr. Abbey will live within the norms of society. In his testimony, Mr. Abbey admitted, as his driver record shows, to breaching Highway Traffic Act driving laws. However, I do not find that these, in themselves, are breaches that impact on acting with integrity, honesty and in the public interest as a seller.
Conclusion regarding Past Conduct
37I agree with the Registrar that Mr. Abbey’s period of unsupervised good conduct is a relatively short period of time, that being less than six years. I also agree that the manslaughter conviction is, indeed, of serious concern. However, I note that the event that led to the manslaughter conviction occurred in 2004, when Mr. Abbey was 18 years old. I also note that the Registrar has recognized that Mr. Abbey has taken responsibility for his past actions. Combining those considerations along with the evidence of Mr. Abbey’s rehabilitation and positive influence in his community, I do not find that the Registrar has established that Mr. Abbey’s past conduct establishes reasonable grounds for belief that the appellant will not conduct itself in accordance with the law and with integrity and honesty.
Underreporting of Mr. Abbey’s convictions on the application for registration as a seller
38In the Disclosure Report for Warren Abbey, a section of the Application to register as a seller, the question is asked: “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. Note: This includes ALL federal and provincial offences.” The answer provided was “Yes”.
39The Disclosure Report continues in asking the applicant to provide the name and jurisdiction of the offence, the year of the occurrence and the outcome. The answer provided was “1. Manslaughter 2. Toronto 3. 2004…” Mr. Abbey did not provide any further information with respect to his other criminal convictions or driver convictions and charges.
40The Registrar submits Mr. Abbey failed to disclose all of his federal and provincial offences as is required by the Application. The Registrar submits that the Application is the first test of integrity and that non-disclosure of all of the required information amounts to dishonesty.
41Breanna Abbey (“Ms. Abbey”) is the wife of Mr. Abbey. She testified that she, not Mr. Abbey, completed the Application and both of their Disclosure Reports. She then checked the box on the Application that certified that she declares that “all information provided in this application is correct.”
42The Registrar submits that, although Ms. Abbey filled out the Application and Disclosure Reports, Mr. Abbey is ultimately responsible for the non-disclosure of all of his criminal and driving convictions.
43I agree with the Registrar that Mr. Abbey should have been more diligent in reviewing the Application and Disclosure Reports. I also agree with the Registrar that the Application represents the first test of integrity. While I accept Mr. Abbey’s testimony that he trusted Ms. Abbey to fill the Application and Disclosure Reports correctly, I find that it was Mr. Abbey’s responsibility to properly review the Disclosure Report and ensure that it fully reported all of the criminal and Highway Traffic Act offences (including charges and convictions), He neglected to do so. For this reason, I find there are reasonable grounds to believe that the applicant will not conduct itself as a seller in accordance with the law, or with integrity, honesty, in the public interest, having regard to Mr. Abbey’s past conduct, specifically with respect to the underreporting on the Application and Disclosure Report.
Ms. Abbey
Past Conduct
44An investigation conducted on behalf of the Registrar revealed the following criminal convictions of Ms. Abbey:
2012-04-16 Possession of a Scheduled 1 Day & Probation18 Mos
Substance For the Purpose On Each Chg Conc & Mandatory
of Trafficking Prohibition Order
Sec. 5(2) CDS Act Sec 109 CC (2 Chgs)
2012-10-29 (1) Escape Lawful Custody (1) 1 Day & Prob. 12 Mos
Sec 145 (1)(A) CC (77 Days Pre-Sentence
Custody)
(2) Fail to Comply With (2) 1 Day & Prob. 12 Mos
Probation Order Conc
Sec 733. 1(1) CC
2013-09-03 (1) Poss Of A Scheduled (1) 55 Days & Prob 18 Mos
Substance For the Purpose (123 Days Pre-Sentence
Of Trafficking Custody) & Mandatory
Sec 5(2) CDS Act Prohibition Order
Sec 109 CC
(2) Fail to Comply With (2) 55 Days & Probation
Probation Order 18 Months, Conc
Sec 733. 1(1) CC
(3) Fail to Comply With (3) 55 Days Conc
Recognizance
Sec 145(3) CC
2014-05-26 Perjury 1 Day (136 Days
Sec 132 CC Pre-Sentence Custody)
2014-05-26 Fail to Comply With 1 Day (7 Days
Recognizance Pre-Sentence Custody)
Sec 145(3) CC
2014-06-11 Fail to Comply With Susp Sent & Prob. 1 Day
Probation Order (12 Days Pre-Sentence
Sec. 733.1(1) CC Custody)
2018-06-01 1) Fail to Comply With (1-2) $50 (45 Days
Recognizance Pre-Sentence Custody)
Sec 145(3) CC X 2
- Poss Of A Schedule 1
Substance
Sec 4(1) CDS Act
2018-09-14 Poss Of Property Obtained 1 Day (178 Days
By Crime Under $5000 Pre-Sentence Custody)
Sec 354(1)(B) CC
2018-10-24 Material Benefit Resulting 316 Days & Probation 18
From Trafficking In Persons Mos (49 Days Pre-Sentence Custody) & Mandatory
Sec 279.02(1) CC Weapons Prohibition
Sec. 109 CC
45The Registrar also submitted Ms. Abbey’s Driver Record which reveal driver suspensions for unpaid fines which were eventually paid, such that the suspensions expired or were rescinded since 2018. It also shows one unsafe move, two fail to come to a stop, one fail to have insurance, one fail to produce driver’s licence and one speeding conviction since 2018.
46With respect to Ms. Abbey’s criminal convictions, the Registrar submits that they are of a serious nature. Her numerous Fail to Comply convictions indicate an unwillingness to comply with obligations. The Registrar also submits that the convictions of Possession of Property Obtained by Crime as well as Material Benefit Resulting in Trafficking in Persons are crimes which impugn Ms. Abbey’s honesty.
47Ms. Abbey testified that the Fail to Comply convictions were poor choices on her part. Regarding the Possession of Property Obtained by Crime Under $5000 and Material Benefit Resulting From Trafficking in Persons convictions, Ms. Abbey testified that, in 2018, she again, made bad choices and “surrounded herself by individuals that she was trafficked by”. She testified that while she was being trafficked, she was beaten and threatened and was fearful of traffickers. She further testified that when she was charged, she accepted responsibility for her crimes while being trafficked and served the sentences imposed upon her.
48Ms. Abbey testified that, when she was in custody for trafficking, she decided to change her life. She began setting goals, particularly with respect to becoming an entrepreneur.
49Ms. Abbey further testified that, since her release from incarceration, she has obtained a number of beautician certificates and had owned a nail salon. She also opened a bubble tea store named Bobalicious in which she is currently a co-owner with a cousin.
50In 2019, Ms. Abbey founded a staffing agency as a sole proprietorship, and later as a corporation of which she is the sole shareholder, Ms. Abbey testified that her agency employs numerous individuals. She also co-owns a second staffing agency with Mr. Abbey.
51Ms. Abbey testified that she is also one of the owners of All in One convenience stores, which are operated by herself and Mr. Abbey. She testified that the stores have 15 employees in three locations.
52Ms. Julie Laine testified on behalf of the appellant. Ms. Laine testified that she met Ms. Abbey in 2019 when Ms. Abbey was incarcerated at the Vanier Centre for Women. At that time, Ms. Laine was employed as a Release from Custody Counselor with the Jean Tweed Centre. She testified that Ms. Abbey requested to meet with her. Ms. Laine testified that, in their conversations, Ms. Abbey told her that she knew why she was incarcerated and what she should have done differently. Ms. Laine testified that Ms. Abbey wished to improve herself and separate herself from her criminal lifestyle once released. It was Ms. Abbey’s desire to upgrade her education and become self-employed. In a letter dated October 6, 2023, Ms. Laine wrote that “Breanna began enrolling herself in courses which focused on becoming an entrepreneur and supporting herself and family with financial means that did not connect to the criminal justice system.”
Period of Good Conduct
53The Registrar submits that Ms. Abbey’s criminal history is serious and her unsupervised period of good conduct since her completion of probation in October 2020 is minimal. The Registrar submits that Ms. Abbey’s failure to comply with probation undertakings does not produce confidence that she will conduct herself in accordance with law, or with integrity, honesty, or in the public interest.
54As noted, the Registrar acknowledges that evaluating a period of good conduct is case specific.
Conclusion regarding Past Conduct
55I agree with the Registrar that Ms. Abbey’s period of good conduct is a shorter period of time than that of Mr. Abbey. I also note that in the three years since her completion of probation, Ms. Abbey has exhibited a concentrated focus on upgrading her education as well as building and operating a number of businesses. This is to be commended. However, I also agree with the Registrar that Ms. Abbey’s perjury conviction of 2014 and her past failures to comply with the probation undertakings of 2014 and 2018 are concerning and speak to honesty and integrity and give rise to reasonable grounds for belief that the Appellant will not conduct itself in accordance with the law and with integrity and honesty. The very nature of the perjury conviction speaks to a lack truthfulness. The breach of the probation undertakings speaks to an unwillingness to adhere to conditions. I do find that the Registrar has established that Ms. Abbey’s past conduct establishes reasonable grounds for belief that the appellant will not conduct itself in accordance with the law and with integrity and honesty.
Underreporting of her convictions on the application for registration as a seller
56In her testimony, Ms. Abbey admitted that it was she who completed the Application as well as the Disclosure Reports. As noted, the Registrar submits that the Application underreports the criminal and Highway Traffic Act convictions of both Ms. Abbey and Mr. Abbey. In answer to the requirement in the Disclosure Reports to disclose all federal and provincial offices, Ms. Abbey listed “Drug charge” for herself and “Manslaughter” for Mr. Abbey.
57As noted, the Registrar submits that the honest completion of the Application (which includes the Disclosure Report) is the first test of integrity. It submits that the failure to disclose the full extent of her criminal convictions and those under the Highway Traffic Act indicate a lack of integrity on Ms. Abbey’s part.
58Ms. Abbey submits that, with respect to federal offences she listed “Drug charge” in her Disclosure Report and “Manslaughter” in Mr. Abbey’s Disclosure Report as these, in her mind, were the most serious charges. She also submitted that she interpreted the requirement to provide the “Name of Offence” as singular and not a requirement to list all of the offences. With respect to the Highway Traffic Act charges, Ms. Abbey submits that she was unaware that these are provincial offences that required inclusion in the Disclosure Reports.
59Upon cross-examination, Ms. Abbey testified that, upon reflection, and with respect to the criminal offences, “she can now see that she should have included each charge”.
60I do not find the argument that Ms. Abbey interpreted the Disclosure Report to list only a single offence to be credible as the form itself states to include “ALL federal and provincial offences.” Regarding the Highway Traffic Act offences, it was incumbent upon Ms. Abbey to educate herself as to whether these infractions were provincial offences that, in turn, would require their inclusion for disclosure.
61I agree with the Registrar that the Disclosure Reports should have enumerated all the federal and provincial offences of both Ms. Abbey and Mr. Abbey. When a Disclosure Report does not, for whatever reason, contain all of the offences, the Registrar is misled with respect to the past conduct of an applicant or the officers/directors/etc. of the applicant. I concur with Adjudicator Flude in 8017 v. Registrar, Collection Agencies Act, 2013 CanLII 51149 (ON LAT) in which he states that “To mislead the Registrar, as happened in this case, raises concerns about future honesty and integrity of the Applicant.”
Conclusion regarding underreporting
62While it may not have been the intention of Ms. Abbey to mislead the Registrar, incompleteness in providing the required information does call into question the integrity and honesty of an applicant. The testimony of both Mr. and Ms. Abbey establishes that it was Ms. Abbey who completed the Application and Disclosure Reports. In failing to provide a comprehensive list of hers and Mr. Abbey’s criminal and Highway Traffic Act offences, she did, in fact, mislead the Registrar. For that reason, as well as the reasons found under the heading of Ms. Abbey’s ‘Conclusion Regarding Past Conduct’, I conclude that the Registrar has established reasonable grounds to believe that the appellant will not conduct itself as a seller in accordance with the law, or with integrity, honesty, in the public interest, having regard to Ms. Abbey’s past conduct.
CONCLUSION
63For the reasons above I find that, due to the under-reporting by both Mr. Abbey and Ms. Abbey as officers and directors of the appellant in the Application and the Disclosure Reports, as well as the past conduct of Ms. Abbey, the Registrar has established reasonable grounds that the appellant will not act as a seller in accordance with the law, or with integrity, honesty, and in the public interest.
64With respect to the appropriate order, I am mindful of the Tribunal’s obligation to consider the possibility of a lesser order than that of a refusal of the applicant’s registration as a supplier (see Joshi v. Superintendent, 2016 ONSC 4477 paragraphs 13 & 14). However, in the matter at hand, the mandatory language of the Act leads me to the conclusion that, once a finding of reasonable grounds is made, the only appropriate result is to confirm the proposed order of the Registrar to refuse the registration of the applicant.
65Section 10 of the Act states that “the Registrar shall refuse to register an applicant as a supplier...if there are reasonable grounds to believe that applicant will not act as a supplier in accordance with law, or with integrity, honesty, or in the public interest, having regard to the past conduct of the applicant”. [emphasis mine]. Having found that those reasonable grounds exist in this case, I am bound by the same mandatory language and must confirm refusal of registration. (see also Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming v. Hossseini-Rad, 2004 CanLII 34450 (ON SCDC in which the Divisional Court found no discretion on the part of Board of Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario by way of similar provisions in 10(2) of the then Liquor Licence Act).
66With respect to the discretion of the Tribunal in s. 13 (10) of the Act to attach terms to the applicant’s registration, such discretion applies only when the Tribunal concludes that there are no reasonable grounds under s. 10, thereby avoiding triggering its mandatory language. In those cases, the Tribunal may consider it appropriate to set aside the proposed order but attach further terms to the order or to the applicant’s registration. It is not open to the Tribunal to find reasonable grounds, thereby confirming a proposed refusal by reason of the mandatory language of s. 10 of the Act, and then attach terms to the applicant’s registration.
67Considering the above and my finding of reasonable grounds in this matter, the only disposition open to me is to confirm the proposed order of the Registrar.
ORDER
68Pursuant to s. 41 of the Act, I confirm the proposed order dated June 20, 2023.
LICENCE APPEAL TRIBUNAL
__________________________
Jeffery Campbell
Vice-Chair
Released: February 2, 2024