RECONSIDERATION DECISION
Before:
Colin Osterberg
Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number:
16573/PSISA
Case Name:
Euroworld Corporation v. Registrar of Private Investigators and Security Guards
Written Submissions by:
For the Appellant:
Howard Manis, Counsel
Dallas Hayes-Nairne, Counsel
For the Respondent:
Adrien Iafrate, Counsel
OVERVIEW
1On September 5, 2025, the appellant requested reconsideration of the Tribunal’s decision dated August 15, 2025 (“decision”).
2In the decision, the Tribunal dismissed the appellant’s appeal of a decision of the Registrar of Private Investigators and Security Guards (the “Registrar”) to refuse the appellant’s application for a security guard agency licence pursuant to s. 13(2) of the Private Security and Investigative Services Act, S.O. 2005, c. 34 (the “Act”).
3The grounds for a request for reconsideration are found in Rule 18.2 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Rules, 2023 (“Rules”). To grant a request for reconsideration, the Tribunal must be satisfied that one or more of the following criteria are met:
a) The Tribunal acted outside its jurisdiction or committed a material breach 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; or
c) 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.
4The appellant relies on Rule 18.2(b) and alleges that the Tribunal made errors of fact and law in the decision such that the Tribunal would likely have reached a different result had the error not been made.
5The appellant also relies on Rule 18.2(a) and alleges that the Tribunal committed a material breach of procedural fairness by rejecting sworn affidavits without genuinely considering their substance and by preferring untested media reports over sworn affidavit evidence. The appellant also alleges that the Tribunal mischaracterized the appellant’s submissions.
6The appellant requests that the decision be varied by granting the appellant’s application for a security guard agency licence or, in the alternative, requests that the Tribunal order a rehearing on all or part of the appeal.
RESULT
7After considering the submissions of the parties, I confirm the decision of the Tribunal.
ANALYSIS
8The test for reconsideration under Rule 18.2 involves a high threshold. The reconsideration process is not an opportunity for a party to re-litigate its position where it disagrees with the Tribunal’s decision, or with the weight assigned to the evidence. The requestor must show how or why the decision falls into one of the categories in Rule 18.2.
Did the Tribunal make an error of law or fact such that the Tribunal would likely have reached a different result had the error not been made?
9I find that the appellant has failed to establish that 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.
10The appellant alleges that the Tribunal made errors of fact or law in its decision, and in particular the Tribunal erred when it concluded that the Registrar’s finding that Badreddine Ahmadoun (“Badreddine”) was an interested person in the appellant was reasonable.
11The appellant argues that the Tribunal’s conclusion about the reasonableness of the Registrar’s finding was based on the following errors:
a. The Tribunal “adopted” the Registrar’s conclusion that Abelouahid Ahmadoun (“Abelouahid”) acknowledged having no security experience;
b. The Tribunal “adopted” the Registrar’s reasoning that Badreddine had a history of using family members as figureheads for businesses he operated;
c. The Tribunal “adopted” the Registrar’s reliance on a media report stating that Badreddine presented himself as the appellant’s manager and administrator to Hamilton City councillors;
d. The Tribunal “adopted” the Registrar’s reliance on Badreddine’s attendance at a show-cause hearing as evidence he may exercise control over the appellant’s business;
e. The Tribunal “adopted” the Registrar’s conclusion that the appellant and another company, Neptune, shared the same mailing address as supporting an inference of Badreddine’s control over the appellant; and
f. The Tribunal “adopted” the Registrar’s reliance on Badreddine”s complaints to the Private Security and Investigative Services Branch and the Ministry after the Notice of Proposal as evidence of control over the appellant.
12The appellant argues that, if those errors of fact had not been made, there could be no reasonable conclusion that Badreddine was an interested person in the appellant and that the Tribunal made an error of fact or law by adopting these facts as found by the Registrar rather than correcting them. The appellant argues that, had the Tribunal corrected the Registrar’s errors, it would have reached a different result.
13The Registrar argues that the appellant’s request for reconsideration is largely an attempt to relitigate the appeal and to reweigh the evidence that was before the Registrar when it made its factual findings.
14The Registrar submits that, since its role was to conduct an appeal on the record, and not a new hearing, the Tribunal was not tasked with making factual findings itself, but rather its role was to determine whether the decision of the Registrar was reasonable in that it is transparent, intelligible, and justified in light of the facts.
15I agree with the position taken by the Registrar in this regard. In its decision, the Tribunal correctly sets out the issues as:
i. Has the appellant proven that the decision of the Registrar to refuse to issue a licence under the Act was not reasonable:
ii. Has the appellant proven that the process was procedurally unfair and/or gives rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias?
16In making its decision, the Tribunal does not “adopt” the factual findings of the Registrar with regard to any of the matters set out above. Rather, the Tribunal discusses each of those factual findings in light of the evidence which was before the Registrar and comes to a determination as to whether those factual findings are reasonable in that they are transparent, intelligible, and justified in light of the facts. The Tribunal correctly sets out this test in paragraph 18 of the decision and I find no basis to