Appeal from a Notice of Proposal to Refuse to Renew a Licence pursuant to the Horse Racing Licence Act, 2015, S.O. 2015, c. 38, Sch. 9
Between:
Tyrone Oneal Rice
Appellant
and
Registrar under the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario Act, 2019
Respondent
DECISION AND ORDER
ADJUDICATOR:
Jeffery Campbell, Vice-Chair
APPEARANCES:
For the Appellant For the Respondent Heard by Videoconference:
Tyrone Oneal Rice Elizabeth Maishlish, Counsel Brian Haddad, Counsel May 27 & 28, 2025
OVERVIEW
1The licence as a Horseperson, under the Horse Racing Licence Act, 2015, S.O. 2015, c. 38, Sch 9 (the “Act”), for Tyrone Oneal Rice (the “Appellant”) was scheduled to expire in October 2024. On September 26, 2024, the Appellant applied for renewal of his licence as a horseperson under the Act.
2On December 4, 2024, the Registrar under the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario Act, 2019 (the “Registrar”) issued a Notice of Proposal to Refuse to Renew the Appellant’s licence (the “NOP”).
3The basis for the Registrar’s proposal is that, under s. 14(a) of the Act, there are reasonable grounds to believe that, when acting as a licensee, the appellant will not act in accordance with the law, or with integrity, honesty, or in the public interest, having regard to his past conduct.
4The Appellant appeals from the Registrar’s proposal.
ISSUE
5The issue in the appeal is whether there are reasonable grounds to believe that, when acting as a licensee, the Appellant will not act in accordance with the law, or with integrity, honesty or in the public interest, having regard to his past, as per s. 14(a) of the Act.
RESULT
6Having considered all of the evidence and the submissions from all parties, and for the reasons that follow, I confirm the NOP and direct it be carried out by the Registrar.
THE LAW
7Horse racing is a regulated industry in Ontario. The purpose of the Act is to regulate the operation of horse racing, racetracks and off-site betting in Ontario. Regulation is accomplished in part by restricting participation in the industry to those who are licensed. Licensees must be aware of and comply with the law, and act with honesty and integrity and in the public interest.
8Section 14 of the Act allows the Registrar to refuse to issue a licence to an applicant or to renew the licence of an applicant if,
(a) 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 the past conduct of the applicant; or
(b) the applicant is carrying on activities that are, or will be, if the applicant is licensed, in contravention of this Act, the regulations, the rules of racing or the conditions of the licence.
ANALYSIS
9While the Registrar bears the onus at the hearing to establish the facts that give rise to its NOP, the appellant bears the onus of proving that there are no reasonable grounds to believe that he will not act with honesty, integrity and in the interest of the public, based on his past conduct.
The facts which give rise to the NOP
10I find that the Registrar has established the facts that give rise to the NOP.
11The Registrar submits that the Appellant has been the subject of problematic occurrences which include numerous racetrack security incidents, criminal charges and an altercation at the racetrack Steward’s office at Woodbine Entertainment.
Criminal Charges
12The Registrar presented evidence, including several Court Informations, which established criminal charges and dispositions against the Appellant as outlined below:
Date of Event that led to the Charge
Charge
Disposition
2012/08
Assault Assault with a Weapon Utter threats Uttering threats
Peace Bond (12 months) $500.00 [This also resulted in in the Appellant’s licence being suspended by the Registrar from April 7, 2014 to May 31, 2016.]
2022/10/10
Publication of an intimate image without consent
Conviction leading to 60 days intermittent custody 12-month probation commencing September 24, 2024
2023/04/19 to 2023/05/03
Criminal harassment
Common law peace bond of $1,000.00 for 16 months commencing on September 23, 2024
2023/04/26
Assault
Common law peace bond of $1,000.00 for 16 months commencing on September 23, 2024
2024/02/29
Failure to Comply with Judicial Release Order
Discharged
13The Appellant did not dispute the accuracy of the above charges, convictions and dispositions. However, the Appellant does submit that a number of the above items did not result in convictions.
14While I agree with the Appellant that some of the listed charges did not result in convictions but were rather resulted in peace bonds, I find the Registrar has established that these criminal charges, convictions and peace bonds did in fact occur.
Security Incidents
15The Registrar presented nine Security Incident Reports from October 20, 2007 to August 2, 2022 which note complaints from workmates about the Appellant.
16The Appellant did contest the events of some of those complaints. However, I am satisfied that Incident Reports are legitimate records of those complaints.
Altercation at Steward’s Office
17Al Stiff (“Mr. Stiff”), a Senior Race Official who was at a meeting at the Steward’s office on October 7, 2022 testified that the Appellant was asked to attend the Steward’s office regarding a complaint from a licensee. That licensee (the mother of one of the Appellant’s children) had asked that the Stewards to speak to the Appellant concerning harassment by the Appellant. Mr. Stiff testified that, at the meeting, the Appellant became disrespectful, irate, accusatory and belligerent. After the Appellant refused to sit and stop yelling, security attended at the meeting and escorted the Appellant out of the office.
18Fenton Platts (“Mr. Platts”), Senior Race Official, who was also at the October 7, 2022 meeting, testified that he witnessed loud and obnoxious behavior from the Appellant. Mr. Platts also witnessed the Appellant being escorted out of the office by security.
19Regarding this meeting, the Appellant testified that he may have been a “little upset” and may have raised his voice, but he did not shout. He also testified that he did not use abusive language. He did admit that he may have had a “roach of grass” on him (in response to the testimony of Mr. Stiff who testified that the Appellant “smelled of marijuana”).
20I prefer the testimony of Mr. Stiff and Mr. Platts over that of the Appellant. Neither Mr. Platt nor Mr. Stiff had any reason to exaggerate the events of the meeting, while the Appellant had obvious reasons to minimize them.
21The Registrar further submitted an incident Detail Report by security officer Jonathan Manuk which verifies that he and another security officer escorted the Appellant from that meeting as a result of the incident described above.
22This incident resulted in an indefinite suspension of the Appellant’s licence on October 13, 2023. The Appellant appealed the suspension to the Horse Racing Appeal Panel (“HRAP”). On January 12, 2023, the indefinite suspension was lifted by the Registrar and a 60-day suspension was issued. On February 27, 2023, HRAP dismissed the appeal on consent and deemed the suspension completed. The Appellant then returned to work on March 1, 2023.
23I am satisfied that the Registrar has established that the meeting of October 7, 2022 occurred and that the appellant behaved inappropriately at the meeting as described by the Registrar’s witnesses.
Conclusion Regarding Facts Giving Rise to the NOP
24Given the above, I find that the Registrar has presented persuasive evidence which establishes the facts that give rise to its NOP. While the Appellant did dispute the some of the circumstances surrounding the events (criminal charges, security incidents and the altercation in the Steward’s office), he does not disagree that those events did indeed occur.
Reasonable grounds to believe
25I have found that the Registrar has met its burden in establishing the facts that give rise the NOP. As set out below, I also find that there are reasonable grounds to believe that, when acting as a licensee, the Appellant will not act with honesty, integrity and in the interest of the public, based on his past conduct. The Appellant has failed to meet his onus to prove that there are no such reasonable grounds.
26The Registrar submits that the Appellant’s past conduct shows a pattern of behaviour which includes not only criminal behaviour and altercations with licensees and judges but also an inclination towards blaming others. The Registrar also submits that this behaviour indicates an unwillingness to be compliant with the rules governing his profession.
27By contrast, the Appellant submits that, while he has made mistakes, he is willing to take responsibility. He submits that, since he was convicted of publishing an intimate image without consent, he has been of good conduct. He also submits that he has undertaken courses and programs to assist in his relationships.
Criminal Charges
28With respect to the dispositions of the Appellant’s criminal charges, the two most recent are the Peace Bonds imposed on September 23, 2024 for Assault and Criminal Harassment and the September 24, 2024 sentence for the Publishing of an Intimate Image Without Consent (“Publishing”).
29The evidence before me (Court Informations as well as the Court Transcript of the guilty plea on the Publication charge) establishes that the Appellant posted a sexually explicit video of an individual on his WhatsApp status. Upon pleading guilty of the resultant Publication charge, the Appellant was sentenced to a 60-day intermittent custodial sentence (which he has completed) as well as 12 months of probation (which he is presently serving).
30The Appellant submits he has taken responsibility for his actions. He testified that after pleading guilty to the Publishing charge, he completed the 60-day custodial sentence without incident and is 8 months into the 12-month probation, again with no issues. He further testified that he has not breached the Peace Bonds imposed in resolution of the Assault and Criminal Harassment charges.
31The Appellant also testified that he has completed the PAR (Partner Assault Response) program in March 2025, as well as an emotional management program at the John Howard Society.
32The evidence before me (Court Informations as well as the Court Transcript of the guilty plea on the Publication charge) establishes that the Appellant posted a sexually explicit video of an individual on his WhatsApp status. Upon pleading guilty for the resultant Publication charge, the Appellant was sentenced to a 60-day intermittent custodial sentence (which he has completed) as well as 12 months of probation (which he is presently serving).
33The Appellant submits that the fact that he has served the 60-day sentence and has not breached his probation supports his position that he is compliant with the law and can be relied upon to have integrity and honesty.
34The Registrar acknowledges that the Appellant has served his custodial sentence and has not, to this point, breached his terms of probation (for the publication conviction), nor his Peace Bonds (for the assault and harassment dispositions). The Registrar submits that, while there have been no breaches to date of the Appellant’s probation and peace bonds, these were both court imposed and do not speak to the Appellant’s conduct when not under the threat of penalty by the court. Therefore, the Appellant’s conduct while under terms of probation and the Peace Bonds are no indication of the Appellant’s future conduct.
35The Registrar also asserts, even when the probation and Peace Bonds are completed, and if done so without incident, there would still be an insufficient amount of time to have passed in order to suitably determine the Appellant’s future conduct.
36The Registrar points to the Tribunal decision of Filion v. Registrar, Alcohol, Cannabis and Gaming, ONLAT HRLA 12911 (“Filion”) in which Adjudicator Létourneau stated in paragraph 31,
“The appellant seeks to participate in a highly regulated industry. This is a privilege rather than a right. There is a clear public interest in ensuring that the regulations and rules of racing are respected by licensees to protect the animals along with other participants in the industry. As noted, the appellant has established positive past conduct that militates in favour of granting a licence. However, the seriousness of the appellant’s criminal record, at this point in time, militates against a licence…In my view, in the circumstances of this case, insufficient time has elapsed since the appellant’s last criminal conviction, which was very serious, for the Tribunal to conclude otherwise.”
37I agree with the Registrar in this regard. While Mr. Filion’s criminal history may have been more prolific that that of the Appellant in this matter, I note the seriousness of the Appellant’s Publication, Assault and Harassment charges. I also am alive to the fact that the Appellant has yet to complete the subsequent probation and Peace Bonds. The recency and seriousness of those charges along with the fact that that the Appellant has had no period of unsupervised time since the Publication conviction and imposition of the Peace Bonds lead me to the conclusion that there are reasonable grounds to believe that he will not act with honesty, integrity and in the interest of the public when acting as a licensee, based on his past conduct. At this point in time, it is too soon to consider licensure in an industry highly dependent upon the public’s confidence. This conclusion is further supported by the Appellant’s other past conduct as set out below.
Security Incidents
38With respect to the nine security incidents (internal reports of incidents internal to the racetrack), the Appellant submits that two incidents in 2011 were mishandled by security at the racetrack and were not his fault. Other security incidents involving the Appellant include:
a. October 20, 2007: Domestic incident at the track with a coworker;
b. June 1, 2008: Dispute with coworker;
c. March 25, 2010: Dispute with coworker;
d. September 14, 2020: Dispute with coworker;
e. April 29, 2021: Dispute with coworker;
f. May 7, 2021: Dispute with coworker;
g. August 2, 2022: Dispute with coworker; and
h. October 7, 2022: This pertains to the incident at the Steward’s Office which is addressed below.
39Robert Jordan, Senior Manager of Security and Racing Integrity at Woodbine Entertainment testified that, with the exception of the security incidents of 2011, each of the security incidents involved altercations between the Appellant and different individuals. It was Mr. Jordan’s position that these incidents “show a pattern of behaviour of getting into arguments with workers and employees.”
40Although fault may not entirely lie with the Appellant in each of the incidents, the frequency of the incidents presents a pattern of behaviour of being unable to work harmoniously with others. I accept the Registrar’s submission in this regard.
41The Registrar also submits that the Appellant’s tendency to blame others for altercations speaks to his lack of integrity and honesty. I am not able to make this finding on the facts before me. However, the sheer number of incident reports regarding workplace disputes supports there being reasonable grounds to believe that the Appellant will not act with honesty, integrity and in the public interest, when acting as a licensee, based on his past conduct.
Altercation at the Steward’s Office
42The Registrar submits that the altercation at the Steward’s Office (concerning a complaint of harassment by a licensee) shows the Appellant’s lack of respect for judges/stewards as well as an inability to take responsibility for his actions.
43The testimony of Mr. Stiff and Mr. Platts was that the Appellant was disrespectful, irate, accusatory, belligerent, loud, and obnoxious at the meeting of October 7, 2022.
44I agree with the Registrar that the altercation at the Steward’s office on October 7, 2022 describes the conduct of a licencee who has an inadequate respect for authority, and who is unlikely to take responsibility for behaviour, which is antithetical to the expectations of one who is granted the privilege of licence in a heavily regulated industry.
Testimony on behalf of the Appellant
45In reaching the conclusions set out above, I have also considered the testimony of witnesses called by the Appellant.
46Ryan Jones, a friend and colleague of the Appellant, testified on his behalf. Mr. Jones had known the Appellant for 15-20 years as a family and work friend. He testified that he does not believe the Appellant to be obnoxious and does not view him as a threat to anyone. He further testified that he had never encountered the Appellant using sexist or language. Mr. Jones testified that he knew of the criminal charge of Publication of an Intimate Image Without Consent and had spoken to the Appellant about it. His understanding from the Appellant was that his wife got a hold of the Appellant’s phone and posted the image. However, this is not consistent with the Appellant’s conviction for Publication of an intimate Image Without Consent.
47Mr. Jones was aware of some, but not all, of the events leading to the Security Incidents. Mr. Jones testified that he would, at times, encourage the Appellant not to lose his temper and get into confrontations with other people.
48Richard Morden, also a friend and colleague, testified on behalf of the Appellant. Mr. Morden is a trainer at Woodbine and the Appellant works for him. Mr. Morden testified that he had never had a problem with the Appellant, stating that he had “seen him be nothing but good with the horses and himself”.
49Upon cross-examination, Mr. Morden testified that he knew of the Publication charge, but stated the charge was not consistent with the “character of the Rice that he knows.” He also knew of the October 7, 2022 meeting at the Steward’s office, but was unaware that the Appellant was escorted out of the meeting. Mr. Morden did not know of the 2023 Assault and Criminal Harassment charges.
50I found the testimony of both Mr. Jones and Mr. Morden to be sincere. However, it is apparent from their testimony that their knowledge of the criminal charges, security incidents and the altercation of at the Steward’s office to be quite limited and, therefore, not to be helpful with respect to those issues.
CONCLUSION
51I have found that the Appellant’s conduct at the Steward’s office on October 7, 2022 exhibited a lack of respect for authority and a lack of responsibility for his actions. The succession of security incidents are also evidence of successive difficulties working appropriately with others in a licensed setting.
52Of further concern is the Appellant’s criminal conviction with respect the Publication of Intimate Images Without Consent. I am alive to the fact that the Appellant pleaded guilty to this charge on his own accord and has also served his custodial sentence. I am also aware that the Appellant has, to date, adhered to the terms of his 12-month probation order which ends in September 2025.
53That probationary period has yet to be completed and the Peace Bonds pursuant to the Assault and Criminal Harassment charges have not expired. I find that the Appellant has not established that there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the Appellant will not act with honesty, integrity and in the interest of the public, when acting as a licensee.
54Perhaps with the passage of time, and the good conduct of the Appellant, he will succeed in again having a licence.
ORDER
55The Tribunal confirms the Registrar’s proposal to refuse to issue the license.
LICENCE APPEAL TRIBUNAL
Jeffery Campbell, Vice-Chair
Released: June 20, 2025