Original in-game verdict

Background 1. Lorna Cabatingan challenges the Municipal Permit Review Desk’s denial of her renewal application. The denial identified one deficiency: the occupancy attachment was missing from the renewal file. Lorna asks that the denial be withdrawn and that the Desk check the acknowledged email attachment and reassess the renewal without charging another application fee. She does not ask the Court to approve the permit automatically. 2. The parties have had an opportunity to address the evidence and the other side’s position. Lorna’s final statement acknowledges that she has no date, email, acknowledgment, or other proof showing that the occupancy attachment reached the Desk before the denial. The Desk’s final statement maintains that the reviewer found no attachment in the renewal file. Issues for determination 3. The first issue is whether the occupancy attachment reached the Desk before denial. Lorna bears the burden of supporting that fact because she seeks relief based on the possibility that the Desk received an attachment but failed to account for it. The applicable rules are Rule 1, requiring proof for a request for relief, and Rule 2, giving greater weight to reliable records than unsupported accounts. 4. The second issue is whether the denial lacked adequate record support or involved an unfair process such that reconsideration is warranted. Lorna bears the burden on this request as well. Rule 45 requires an administrative decision to have support in the record. Rule 7 recognizes that a flawed process can affect fairness, while Rule 6 requires a remedy proportionate to what is proved. Submissions of the parties 5. Lorna argues that the receipt proves the Desk accepted her renewal packet, and that the Desk’s file does not establish that an emailed attachment was never received. She emphasizes that the Desk’s representative did not personally check the incoming email. She seeks only a check and reassessment, without another application fee, rather than automatic approval. 6. The Desk argues that the reviewer found no occupancy attachment in the renewal file and denied the application for that reason alone. It accepts that the receipt shows a paper packet was accepted but says the receipt does not identify its contents. The Desk’s representative cannot confirm whether the incoming email was checked and is unaware of any record showing that the attachment arrived before denial. The Desk says the record therefore supports the reviewer’s finding that the required attachment was not present in the file. Evidence and findings 7. The receipt presented as exhibit-3-e1, and repeated as exhibits 5-e1 and 7-e1, bears Lorna’s name, her shop name, and a renewal reference. It records acceptance of a paper application packet. It does not itemize attachments. The receipt is relevant and supports acceptance of a packet, but it does not prove that the occupancy attachment was included or separately received by email. The repeated copies do not add proof of the packet’s contents. 8. The Desk’s submissions state that the reviewer found no occupancy attachment in the renewal file and that the denial notice identified that as the sole deficiency. These are the Desk’s accounts of the review and decision; no separate denial notice or review file is presented. The accounts are consistent across the Desk’s submissions, and Lorna does not dispute that the reviewer found the attachment absent from the file. I find that the available record supports that the reviewer found no attachment in the file and that the stated reason for denial was its absence. 9. The Desk’s representative did not personally check the incoming email, does not know who checked the email or document systems, and cannot confirm whether the email can currently be checked. This limits what the Desk’s representative can establish about email handling. It does not establish that an attachment was received, that an email record existed, or that the reviewer failed to consider a received attachment. Lorna expressly acknowledges that she has no further proof of timely delivery. Reasons 10. On the first issue, Lorna has not proved that the occupancy attachment reached the Desk before denial. The receipt is a reliable record of acceptance of a paper packet, but its stated contents do not include an itemized attachment list. Lorna’s own final account confirms that she cannot identify an email, date, acknowledgment, or other evidence of delivery. The Desk’s inability to confirm whether email was checked leaves uncertainty, but uncertainty is not proof of receipt. Under Rule 1, that unresolved fact must be decided against the party bearing the burden. The issue is not proven. 11. On the second issue, the record supports the limited finding that the reviewer did not find the required attachment in the renewal file and that the denial relied on that deficiency. Rule 45 requires record support for an agency decision; it does not make the Desk’s file conclusive about whether an attachment might have arrived through another channel. But the record contains no proof that it did arrive, that the Desk had an available email record showing receipt, or that the reviewer ignored such a record. The representative’s lack of personal knowledge is a genuine limitation, but it does not by itself establish that the decision lacked support or that the process was unfair under Rule 7. 12. Lorna’s requested remedy is narrow and proportionate in form. She seeks reassessment, not automatic approval, and asks not to pay another application fee. That restraint is a strength of her request under Rule 6, but a limited remedy still requires a factual basis. Because the record does not establish timely receipt or an unsupported denial, the Court cannot order the Desk to withdraw the denial or conduct the requested reassessment on this record. This ruling does not find that the attachment could not have been emailed; it finds only that timely receipt and a resulting defect in the decision have not been proved. Final order 13. Judgment is entered for the Municipal Permit Review Desk. Lorna Cabatingan’s request to withdraw the incomplete-application denial and require a check and reassessment without another application fee is denied. No permit approval, payment, or other monetary award is ordered. The denial remains undisturbed by this judgment. The ruling is limited to the evidence presented in this hearing and does not establish whether an email attachment was in fact sent or received.