Mo's Sports Parlour (2000) Ltd. v. Gaming and Liquor Commission (Alta.), 2006 ABQB 455

• Judge: Moen, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: January 27, 2006
• Citations: 2006 ABQB 455;(2006), 413 A.R. 288 (QB)

Mo's Sports Parlour v. Gaming & Liquor (2006), 413 A.R. 288 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2007] A.R. TBEd. JA.053

Mo's Sports Parlour (2000) Ltd. (plaintiff) v. Board of the Alberta Gaming and Liquor Commission (defendant)

(0503 17786; 2006 ABQB 455)

Indexed As: Mo's Sports Parlour (2000) Ltd. v. Gaming and Liquor Commission (Alta.)

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Edmonton

Moen, J.

June 21, 2006.

Summary:

A Board of the Gaming and Liquor Commission found that illegal gambling took place at Mo's Sports Parlour. A hearing was held. The Board cancelled Mo's licenses to serve liquor and have gaming machines. Mo's applied for judicial review.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the application.

Administrative Law - Topic 2266

Natural justice - The duty of fairness - What constitutes procedural fairness - [See first Gaming and Betting - Topic 1865 ].

Administrative Law - Topic 2491

Natural justice - Procedure - At hearing - Cross-examination - [See first Gaming and Betting - Topic 1865 ].

Administrative Law - Topic 2602

Natural justice - Evidence and proof - Burden of proof - [See second Gaming and Betting - Topic 1865 ].

Administrative Law - Topic 2611

Natural justice - Evidence and proof - Witnesses - Cross-examination of - [See first Gaming and Betting - Topic 1865 ].

Administrative Law - Topic 9102

Boards and tribunals - Judicial review - Standard of review - [See Gaming and Betting - Topic 1875 ].

Gaming and Betting - Topic 1865

Regulation - Licensing and registration - Refusal, suspension or termination of licences - A Board of the Gaming and Liquor Commission found that illegal gambling took place at Mo's Sports Parlour - A hearing was held - The panel curtailed Mo's cross-examination of the only witness, an undercover investigator, when Mo's sought to test the investigator's memory - The Board cancelled Mo's licenses to serve liquor and have gaming machines - Mo's applied for judicial review, asserting, inter alia, that the Board had breached the duty to be fair by refusing to allow Mo's to ask the memory question - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the application - The Board's actions were well within the trier-of-fact's control of procedure under s. 15 of the Gaming and Liquor Act - Mo's assertion that it was not allowed to continue cross-examination was incorrect - The Board held that Mo's could ask questions for clarification, but could not conduct a memory "test" - There was no breach of the principles of natural justice or the duty to be fair - See paragraphs 20 to 58.

Gaming and Betting - Topic 1865

Regulation - Licensing and registration - Refusal, suspension or termination of licences - A Board of the Gaming and Liquor Commission found that activities "akin to bookmaking" took place at Mo's Sports Parlour - Two directors of Mo's were also charged under the Criminal Code - The Board cancelled Mo's licenses to serve liquor and have gaming machines - Mo's applied for judicial review, asserting, inter alia, that the Board had erred in interpreting ss. 69(1)(a) and 91 of the Gaming and Liquor Act by concluding that it need only find on a balance of probabilities that the directors were bookmaking - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the application - Taking into account the context of the sections and the distinction between the regulatory and quasi-criminal procedures in the Act and noting that the hearing was a civil proceeding, the appropriate standard of proof was the civil standard - Given that the allegation was a breach of the Criminal Code, proof likely required a higher degree of probability, but still within the civil standard - The facts as found by the Board revealed gambling activities even on a higher probability than the usual standard - See paragraphs 73 to 89.

Gaming and Betting - Topic 1865

Regulation - Licensing and registration - Refusal, suspension or termination of licences - A Board of the Gaming and Liquor Commission found that activities "akin to bookmaking" took place at Mo's Sports Parlour - Two directors of Mo's were also charged under the Criminal Code - The Board cancelled Mo's licenses to serve liquor and have gaming machines - Mo's applied for judicial review, asserting, inter alia, that the Board could not act in its regulatory capacity until a criminal court had convicted Mo's and that, in doing so, the Board had usurped the functions of a criminal court - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the application - Mo's suggestion would mean that the Board could take no steps to enforce the licenses it granted until the process of criminal litigation had finished - Under s. 91(3) of the Gaming and Liquor Act, a licence could not be cancelled until after the Commission had completed an investigation or the person had been convicted under the Criminal Code - Here, the Commission had completed an investigation - The Board was within its jurisdiction to conduct a hearing - See paragraphs 90 to 92.

Gaming and Betting - Topic 1875

Regulation - Licensing and registration - Judicial review and appeal - A Board of the Gaming and Liquor Commission found that activities "akin to bookmaking" took place at Mo's Sports Parlour - The Board cancelled Mo's licenses to serve liquor and have gaming machines - Mo's applied for judicial review, asserting, inter alia, that the Board had erred in interpreting ss. 69(1)(a) and 91 of the Gaming and Liquor Act by concluding that it need only find on a balance of probabilities that the directors were engaged in bookmaking - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the application - After conducting a functional and pragmatic analysis, the court concluded that the standard of review of the Board's interpretation of the Act and conclusions regarding the nature of the activities and whether those activities were "gambling" was reasonableness simpliciter - See paragraphs 59 to 72.

Cases Noticed:

Conseil de la magistrature (N.-B.) v. Moreau-Bérubé, [2002] 1 S.C.R. 249; 281 N.R. 201; 245 N.B.R.(2d) 201; 636 A.P.R. 201, refd to. [para. 21].

Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 817; 243 N.R. 22, refd to. [para. 22].

Congrégation des témoins de Jéhovah de St-Jerôme-Lafontaine v. Lafontaine (Village), [2004] 2 S.C.R. 650; 323 N.R. 1; 2004 SCC 48, refd to. [para. 23].

Cardinal and Oswald v. Kent Institution (Director), [1985] 2 S.C.R. 643; 63 N.R. 353, refd to. [para. 23].

Inuit Tapirisat of Canada and National Anti-Poverty Organization v. Canada (Attorney General), [1980] 2 S.C.R. 735; 33 N.R. 304, refd to. [para. 23].

Martineau v. Matsqui Institution Disciplinary Board, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 602; 30 N.R. 119, refd to. [para. 23].

Nicholson v. Haldimand-Norfolk Regional Board of Commissioners of Police and Ontario (Attorney General), [1979] 1 S.C.R. 311; 23 N.R. 410, refd to. [para. 23].

Pushpanathan v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 982, addendum [1998] 1 S.C.R. 1222; 226 N.R. 201, refd to. [para. 60].

Siksika Nation v. Walji Holdings Ltd. et al. (2004), 350 A.R. 324; 2004 ABQB 37, refd to. [para. 61].

Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. Canada Labour Relations Board et al., [1995] 1 S.C.R. 157; 177 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 65].

Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. et al. v. Canada (Attorney General) et al., [2005] 1 S.C.R. 533; 334 N.R. 55; 2005 SCC 26, refd to. [para. 79].

Ringrose v. College of Physicians and Surgeons (Alta.), [1978] 2 W.W.R. 534; 8 A.R. 113; 83 D.L.R.(3d) 680 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused (1978), 22 N.R. 449; 10 A.R. 628 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 81].

K.V. v. College of Physicians and Surgeons (Alta.) (1999), 237 A.R. 49; 197 W.A.C. 49; 74 Alta. L.R.(3d) 93 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused (2000), 253 N.R. 400; 261 A.R. 397; 225 W.A.C. 397 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 81].

M.E.H. v. Law Society of Alberta (2005), 371 A.R. 277; 354 W.A.C. 277; 2005 ABCA 265 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 81].

Nand v. Board of Education of Edmonton Public School District No. 7 (1994), 157 A.R. 123; 77 W.A.C. 123; 23 Alta. L.R.(3d) 63 (C.A.), leave to appeal dismissed (1995), 189 N.R. 398; 178 A.R. 78; 110 W.A.C. 78 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 86].

R. v. Oakes, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 103; 65 N.R. 87; 14 O.A.C. 335; 24 C.C.C.(3d) 321, refd to. [para. 87].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Driedger, Elmer A., Construction of Statutes (2nd Ed. 1983), p. 87 [para. 79].

Counsel:

Karl R. Wilbert (Andrew Engels & Oake LLP), for the applicant;

Frederick A. Day, Q.C., (McLennan Ross LLP), for the respondent.

This application was heard on January 27, 2006, by Moen, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Edmonton, who delivered the following reasons for judgment on June 21, 2006.