Rob Sidhu

The appellant appealed a Notice of Proposed Order refusing his application for a Driver and Trainer licence under the Horse Racing Licence Act, 2015.

The Registrar refused the application based on the appellant's lengthy and serious criminal history, arguing it provided reasonable grounds to believe he would not act with honesty, integrity, or in the public interest.

The appellant presented evidence of recent honest participation in the Quebec horse racing industry and argued he had broken from his criminal past.

The Tribunal found that while the appellant had made positive steps, insufficient time had passed since his last serious criminal conviction to overcome the reasonable grounds for refusal.

The Tribunal confirmed the Registrar's proposal to refuse the licences.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Proposal by the Registrar to refuse its application for a liquor sales licence.

The Registrar proposed refusal on the basis that an officer and director of the appellant was a member of the Neo-Black Movement (NBM), a criminal organization, which afforded reasonable grounds for belief that the appellant would not carry on business in accordance with the law and with integrity and honesty.

The Tribunal found on a balance of probabilities that the NBM is a criminal organization and that the director is a member.

The Tribunal concluded that this membership provided reasonable grounds for belief that the business would not be carried on with honesty and integrity, and directed the Registrar to carry out the proposal to refuse the application.

The applicant, a licensed racehorse trainer, sought judicial review of a decision by the Horse Racing Appeal Panel.

A horse trained by the applicant tested positive for a banned substance, resulting in an absolute liability offence.

The Panel found the applicant was not at fault and reduced his suspension from 15 days to seven days, but concluded it had no authority to waive the rule entirely.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Panel's decision reasonable as the offence is one of absolute liability and due diligence is only relevant to penalty, not liability.

The appellant appealed the Registrar's proposal to refuse his application for a groom's licence under the Horse Racing Licence Act, 2015.

The Registrar based its refusal on the appellant's prior U.S. conviction for attempted enticement of a minor and his failure to disclose a 2007 driving conviction.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the non-disclosure was an unintentional oversight and that the appellant's successful rehabilitation, including voluntary completion of a sex offender program and release on full parole without conditions, demonstrated he would act with honesty, integrity, and in the public interest.

The Tribunal set aside the proposal and ordered the Registrar to issue the licence, allowing parties to make submissions on potential conditions.

The appellant, a long-time racehorse owner, appealed a Notice of Proposal to Revoke his licence and an Order of Immediate Suspension issued by the Registrar of Alcohol, Gaming and Racing.

The Registrar's actions were based on the appellant's recent criminal conviction for selling chemicals used to manufacture methamphetamines and his provision of misleading information about the conviction on his licence renewal application.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that, despite the serious criminal conviction and the false application, the appellant's pristine 28-year record as a licensee, his genuine remorse, and his strict compliance with his conditional sentence outweighed the negative conduct.

The Tribunal concluded there were no reasonable grounds to believe he would not act with honesty and integrity as a licensee in the future, and set aside both the proposal to revoke and the immediate suspension.

The Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming issued an Order of Monetary Penalty of $2,000 against the appellant establishment for allegedly exceeding its licensed capacity by 10 patrons.

The appellant appealed to the Licence Appeal Tribunal.

The Tribunal found inconsistencies in the inspector's evidence and noted that only one count was performed, which was not a precise 'count-out'.

The Tribunal concluded the Registrar failed to establish on a balance of probabilities that the establishment was over capacity.

The monetary penalty was set aside.

The applicant appealed a Notice of Proposal to Refuse Registration issued by the Registrar under the Collection Agencies Act.

The applicant failed to attend the hearing.

The Registrar presented evidence that the applicant falsely answered 'No' to a question on his application form asking if he was currently subject to any criminal charges, when in fact he was facing charges for uttering a death threat and threatening bodily harm.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's failure to disclose the charges demonstrated a lack of honesty and integrity, satisfying the grounds for refusal under s. 6(1)(b) of the Act.

The Tribunal ordered the Registrar to carry out the proposal to refuse registration.