Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 17841/AGCOA
In the matter of an appeal from an Order of Monetary Penalty of the Registrar of Alcohol, Gaming and Racing under the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario Act, 2019, S.O. 2019, c. 15, Sched 1.
Gateway Casinos & Entertainment Limited dba Gateway Casinos Sudbury
Appellant
and
Registrar under the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario Act, 2019
Respondent
DECISION
ADJUDICATOR:
Dagmara Szczudlo
APPEARANCES:
For the Appellant:
Abbey Fortin, Counsel Laura Bevan, Counsel
For the Respondent:
Timothy Edwards, Counsel Brian Haddad, Counsel
Heard by:
Videoconference on April 13 and 14, 2026
OVERVIEW
1Gateway Casinos & Entertainment Limited dba Gateway Casinos Sudbury (the “appellant”) appeals an order of the Registrar under the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario Act, 2019 (the “Registrar”), dated September 22, 2025 to impose monetary penalties pursuant to section 14 of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario Act, 2019, S.O. 2019, c. 15, Sched 1, (the “Act”) in the total amount of $12,500.00.
2The order of monetary penalty (“OMP”) was imposed as a result of failure to ensure that individuals under 19 years of age were not permitted on the gaming site in contravention of ss. 3.1.2(a) and 3.2.1(a) of the Registrar’s Standards for Gaming (the “Standards”).
3The appellant requested a hearing by the Licence Appeal Tribunal (the “Tribunal”) pursuant to s. 14(7) of the Act by way of a Notice of Appeal (“NOA”) that was filed on October 7, 2025 and this matter proceeded to a two-day videoconference hearing.
ISSUES IN DISPUTE
4The preliminary issue in dispute is:
i. Does the Tribunal have authority to order the Registrar to take no action if it finds that the appellant contravened the Standards?
5The substantive issues in dispute are:
i. Has the Registrar established that the appellant contravened the Standards in one instance each on April 6 and 7, 2025, and two instances on April 8, 2025, by failing to ensure individuals under 19 years of age were not permitted on the gaming site in contravention of ss. 3.1.2(a) and 3.2.1(a) of the Standards?
ii. If so, should the Registrar’s OMP be confirmed by the Tribunal?
RESULT
6The appellant contravened ss. 3.1.2(a) and 3.2.1(a) of the Standards.
7The Registrar’s OMP in the amount of $5,000 is confirmed in relation to contravention of s. 3.1.2(a).
8The Registrar’s OMP in the amount of $7,500 is confirmed in relation to contravention of s. 3.2.1(a).
PROCEDURAL ISSUES
Preliminary issue
9At the outset of the hearing, both parties advised that submissions for the preliminary issue listed in the Case Conference Report and Order released by the Tribunal on November 25, 2026 (“CCRO”) will be consolidated with closing submissions. As a result, I will not make findings on the preliminary issue above and instead, will consider the parties’ submissions in relation to whether to confirm the monetary penalties or set them aside.
Granted request to anonymize the minor’s name in published decision
10I granted the respondent’s post-hearing request and agreed to anonymize the minor’s name in the hearing decision.
11On April 17, 2026, the respondent contacted the Tribunal and requested an order to anonymize the minor’s name in any published decision. The Respondent sought an order pursuant to section 2(2) of the Tribunal Adjudicative Records Act, S.O. 2019, c. 7, Sch. 60 (“TARA”), barring publication of the minor’s complete name, but rather have the minor addressed either by initials or as “the minor”.
12The respondent submitted that given the age of the minor and the actions described, there is a heightened privacy interest in the minor’s name, and a heightened public interest in not making the name publicly available. The respondent also submitted that the special status of minors and the need to protect their identity is uncontroversial and has been widely acknowledged, including by Parliament in the Youth Criminal Justice Act.
13The issue of the anonymization of the minor’s name was not raised at the hearing and the respondent’s submission did not include the appellant’s position regarding the request.
14The Tribunal’s adjudicative records are generally open to the public, in accordance with the open court principle and s. 2(1) of TARA. However, s. 2(2) of TARA provides that the Tribunal may order that all or part of an adjudicative record be treated as confidential and not disclosed to the public if it determines that matters contained in the record are of such a nature that the public interest or the interest of a person served by avoiding disclosure outweighs the desirability of adhering to the principle that the record be available to the public. Rule 13 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Rules echoes these principles.
15Similarly, the Supreme Court of Canada in Sherman Estate v. Donovan, 2021 SCC 25 (“Sherman”), held that the party seeking a confidentiality order of any sort has the burden of proving that one should be made. The Court also set out the following requirements that must be met before placing limits on the open court principle:
i. court openness poses a serious risk to an important public interest;
ii. the order sought is necessary to prevent this serious risk to the identified interest because reasonably alternative measures will not prevent this risk; and
iii. as a matter of proportionality, the benefits of the order outweigh its negative effect.
16I find the interests of the minor involved in this matter outweigh the desirability of adhering to the open court principle and agree that the special status of minors applies in this situation. Identification of the minor in this case may cause him future harm and unwanted attention in his community or online, particularly since repeated instances of gambling were involved. Court openness in this situation poses a serious risk to public interest in protecting the identity of minors. The relevant fact in this dispute is that a 17-year-old gained entry to a casino on multiple occasions. Identifying information regarding the specific minor is not required for the public to understand the nature of the allegations and the core substance of the reasons for the decision. As a result, the benefits of using the minor’s initials outweigh the negative effect of obscuring his identity.
17For the reasons listed above, I find that it is unnecessary to include the minor’s full name and grant the respondent’s request to anonymize the minor’s name in the published decision using his initials M.B.
The Law
18Section 14(2) of the Act authorizes the Board of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario to establish, and the Attorney General to approve, a schedule of monetary penalties for contraventions of the Gaming Control Act, 1992 and its regulation. This section also requires the publication of such a schedule.
19Sections 3.8 and 3.9 of the Gaming Control Act, 1992 authorize the Registrar to establish standards that every registrant, including the appellant, must abide by. The Standards provide, at ss. 3.1.2(a) and 3.2.1(a), that every registrant shall ensure that game site access to designated groups, such as minors under 19 years of age, is denied and these individuals are not permitted to play lottery schemes at a casino. There is a limited exception being the presence of such person is in the course of employment.
20The Registrar may impose an OMP pursuant to section 14(5) of the Act, and the OMP may be appealed to this Tribunal under section 14(7). Section 14(10) states that upon holding a hearing, the Tribunal may either confirm the OMP or set it aside—there is no legislated authority to vary the amount of an OMP.
21The onus lies with the Registrar to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that there has been a contravention of ss. 3.1.2(a) and 3.2.1(a) of the Standards.
ANALYSIS
Appellant failed to ensure that an individual under 19 years of age was not permitted on the gaming site and was not permitted to play lottery schemes at the casino gaming site
22I find that the appellant failed to ensure that an individual under 19 years of age was not permitted to gamble on the gaming site in contravention of s. 3.1.2(a) and 3.2.1(a) of the Standards.
23The respondent relied on the testimony of:
i. Darrell Sargent, Inspector; and
ii. Alain St. Jacques, Detective Constable OPP.
24The appellant relied on the testimony of:
iii. Shannon Shirley, Security Supervisor;
iv. Sean Teeple, Surveillance Manager; and
v. Mike Lasci, Security Shift Manager.
25I find that testimony and evidence put forward by both parties establishes that an individual under 19 years of age — M.B. — was admitted to the casino gaming site and gambled there on April 6, April 7, and April 8, 2025 (two separate occasions on this date). I find surveillance evidence showing M.B. undergoing Security identification checks during casino entry as well as testimony from Shannon Shirely and Alain St. Jacques particularly persuasive because both individuals interacted directly with M.B. at the casino on April 8, 2025.
26Shannon Shirley, Security Supervisor, testified that she received a phone call from M.B.’s mother on the evening of April 8, 2025. The mother communicated that her 17-year-old son may be using a friend’s identification to gain access to gamble at the casino. Ms. Shirley testified that she requested a photo of the minor from his mother and generated a Be On Look Out (“BOLO”) document containing the photo she received with her Security team. She personally delivered the BOLO to the Security desk where she was notified that the individual in the photo looked familiar and may already be on the gaming floor.
27Continuing her testimony, Shannon Shirley also sought support from her manager, Mike Lasci as to additional steps that should be taken because she was new to her role, and it was the first time she encountered this situation. She was directed to notify Alain St. Jacques, Detective Constable with the OPP, who was present at the casino and she personally spoke to the Detective Constable to alert him of the event. Shannon Shirley and Security approached M.B. on the gaming floor while he was playing slots on April 8, 2025, and requested ‘his’ identification. Surveillance evidence of this interaction showed that M.B. was left at the slot machine while ‘his’ identification was taken for verification.
28Detective Constable Alain St. Jacques testified that he interviewed M.B. on April 8, 2025 at a casino Security desk near the entrance to the gaming floor. According to surveillance footage, M.B. left the gaming floor once ‘his’ identification was taken for verification and inquired if everything was ok at the Security desk. Alain St. Jacques met M.B. there and performed an in-person identity check which included:
a. asking M.B. to remove his toque;
b. comparing M.B.’s facial features to an image provided to the casino by his mother;
c. comparing M.B.’s facial features to those in the driver’s license he used to enter the casino; and
d. asking M.B. for tombstone information such as date of birth, address, etc.
29Continuing his testimony, Alain St. Jacques stated that initially M.B. was evasive about his identity and how he obtained the driver’s license of C.B. which was used to gain entry to the casino. Upon direct questioning, M.B. provided his real name and admitted that he was not C.B.. Detective Constable St. Jacques confirmed that M.B. was born on October 25, 2007, and was 17 years old at the time of the interview using a Ministry of Transportation Driver Inquiry database. During cross-examination, he also confirmed that the driver’s license for C.B. was valid at the time of use and according to this document, C.B. was born on February 15, 2005, and was over 19 years of age. Detective Constable St. Jacques issued an indefinite trespass notice to the minor, M.B. and a second BOLO was generated to alert staff that he accessed the gaming floor using a friend’s identification.
30I find that the Registrar met their onus to prove that there has been a contravention of ss. 3.1.2(a) and 3.2.1(a) of the Standards. In addition to surveillance footage and testimony from witnesses at the hearing, I find that the Compliance Review Gateway Casino Sudbury report prepared by Mike Lasci, Security Shift Manager contains several admissions that a minor M.B. “entered the gaming floor and did game on four separate occasions”. The material issue for the hearing was not whether a contravention occurred — because both parties agree that it occurred — but rather why it occurred and whether the proposed penalties are appropriate or should be set aside by the Tribunal. Accordingly, I’ll now analyze the factors which lead to the admitted contravention.
Appellant’s Security Identification Training not followed by Security staff
31I find that evidence presented at the hearing demonstrates that although policies and procedures exist, and staff training was conducted, Security staff did not follow the policies on at least four occasions and admitted a minor to the casino.
32The respondent submitted that keeping minors off the casino floor is a regulatory directive and the appellant’s internal policy and training documents reflect the seriousness of not complying with this requirement. The respondent relied on the Gateway Gaming Sites Policies and Procedures Manual (“Policy Manual”) and the Gateway Security Identification Training Manual (“Training Manual”) during the hearing to argue that Security staff did not follow internal procedures when dealing with a person under 21 years of age, particularly one with such a youthful appearance as M.B.
33The respondent also argued that Security staff did not perform a meaningful identify check for M.B. when ‘his’ driver’s license was in their possession, and if they had, they would discover that his appearance is significantly different than that of the person pictured on the license.
34The appellant submitted that Security staff performed required identification checks and M.B. used a valid, government issued driver’s license to gain access to the casino. The appellant submitted that the driver’s license was scanned using a software verifier and it would be an error for the Tribunal to substitute its own judgement regarding appearance differences over the judgement of Security staff who performed the actual identification on April 6, 7, and 8, 2025.
35The appellant further submitted that prior to interviewing M.B., Detective Constable St. Jacques already knew that he was a minor using a friend’s identification based on the information shared with the casino by M.B.’s mother. This knowledge influenced his actions on April 8, 2025, and should not be used to impart hindsight on Security staff or the appellant. In my view, the appellant’s argument is intended to emphasize that Security staff did not have the benefit of this knowledge when reviewing the identification presented by M.B. and were misled. I am not persuaded by this submission because the role of Security is to prevent unauthorized individuals from gaining access to the casino. A key component of this responsibility is an awareness that such individuals will attempt to gain entry and to remain vigilant to that possibility when reviewing identification. This did not occur, and a minor was admitted to the casino on four separate occasions.
36The appellant relies on several photos of identification signage displayed at the entrance to the casino to showcase policies related to age verification and to publicize the age of majority on a given day. I find that this evidence is not helpful in analyzing why the contravention occurred. In my view, the signage exists to communicate regulations/policies to the public and does not confirm that information displayed in the signs is incorporated into the routine practice of age verification at the casino. In this regard, the appellant’s actual Policy Manual and Training Manual are more useful.
37Security footage of the four instances where M.B. was admitted to the gaming floor is probative of a finding that steps outlined in the appellant’s policy and training manual were not followed by Security staff on multiple occasions. For example, the Policy Manual states that Security representatives are responsible for “ensuring the ID belongs to the patron providing the ID” (page 11) and warns that “commonly, persons who are underage attempt to impersonate someone whom they closely resemble such as a family member, relative or friend. The identification is usually legitimate, but it is the wrong owner. Ask for secondary identification” (page 56). I also note that as per testimony at the hearing, the secondary piece of ID provided by the minor M.B. was a letter related to the renewal of a health card, and this letter does not meet the common acceptable secondary (supporting) IDs listed on page 56 of the Policy Manual yet was accepted by Security staff.
38Based on review of surveillance footage, M.B. did not display suspicious body language associated with someone who is not who they present themselves to be. However, I agree with the respondent’s submission that since the driver’s license used by M.B. stated that he was 19 years old, his ID check required a higher level of scrutiny because a patron under 21 years old was involved. With the benefit of hindsight, I note that in all instances where the minor M.B. was being identified by Security, he was wearing accessories (baseball cap, glasses, and/or toque). I agree with the testimony of Detective Constable St. Jacques and find that these accessories interfered with an appropriate assessment of whether the “ID belongs to the patron providing the ID”.
39I find the evidence presented by Detective Constable St. Jacques to be objective, compelling and credible information about appropriate methods of performing identification verification and find that the appellant’s Security staff did not follow internal training to detect and prevent the admission of a minor. Of particular concern is the fact that four Security staff interacted with the minor on four separate occasions and all four did not detect that the ID he provided did not belong to him.
40I will now turn to the OMP and analyze whether the proposed penalties are appropriate or should be set aside by the Tribunal.
Due diligence defense does not apply - OMP confirmed
41I confirm the Registrar’s decision to impose both OMPs.
42The Registrar’s OMP may be confirmed or set aside by the Tribunal under s. 14(10) of the Act. The Tribunal does not have legislated authority to vary the amount of an OMP.
43The respondent asks the Tribunal to confirm the decision of the Registrar and argues that the appellant ‘ought to have known’ that M.B. was a minor and prevented his access to the gaming site. The respondent relies on Northway Hotel (Re) [1999] O.A.G.C.D. No. 361 (“Northway Hotel’) to argue that “the mere fact of asking for and having seen a piece of identification does not absolve a licensee of his responsibility”. The appellant should have flagged that M.B. was not the individual in the identification he provided and should not rely on a report from a concerned mother to detect minors on its premises.
44The respondent also cited the Ontario Court of Appeal case 1213963 Ontario Limited v. Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario, 2009 ONCA 323 (“Sin City”) in support of the position that permitting a minor on the premises requires proof that the licensee knew or ought to have known of the minor on the premises.
45Among other cases, the respondent also cited the Divisional Court case Gordon Capital Corp. v Ontario (Securities Commission), [1991] O.J. No. 934 (“Gordon”), in support of its position that a due diligence defense applies only in criminal or quasi-criminal proceedings with penal consequences, not in administrative regulatory matters such as this one. The respondent argued the Tribunal should reject the appellant’s due diligence defense and confirm the OMP.
46The appellant opposed the respondent’s request and argued that the OMP should be set aside because the appellant performed due diligence in verifying the identification provided by the minor. The appellant argued that Northway Hotel is distinguishable because casino Security staff were working in a well-lit uncrowded area, and had time to make an assessment they felt was appropriate. As stated in [54] of Northway Hotel, the “authenticity of the identification must be reasonably determined”. The appellant argues that Security staff determined that the identification used by the minor was authentic, and due diligence does not require perfection.
47As per the binding Divisional Court decision in Gordon, I find that the due diligence defense is not available to the appellant in this matter and it would be an error in law to set aside the OMP because a contravention did occur. I find instead that the appellant ought to have known that M.B. was not the individual in the identification he provided.
48Having considered all the evidence, I direct the Registrar to carry out the OMP and decline to set aside the penalty in these circumstances.
ORDER
49Pursuant to s. 14(10) of the Act, I order the Registrar to carry out the OMP.
Released: June 8, 2026
__________________________
Dagmara Szczudlo
Adjudicator