Donald Bourgeois

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Racing Commission revoking his horse racing licences for allegedly conspiring to fix a race.

The Commission's majority decision relied heavily on the uncorroborated evidence of an admitted liar who had made a deal to implicate the applicant, while ignoring exculpatory evidence and failing to explain why it disbelieved the applicant's witnesses.

The Divisional Court allowed the application, finding that the Commission's failure to provide adequate reasons for its credibility findings and penalty constituted a denial of natural justice and procedural fairness.

The matter was remitted to a differently constituted panel.

The appellant association appealed a Divisional Court decision dismissing its application for judicial review.

The respondent race track owner had excluded certain licensed members of the appellant from racing at its track, citing private property rights.

The Ontario Racing Commission declined jurisdiction to hold a hearing on the matter, believing it could not interfere with private property rights.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the Commission's broad statutory powers to govern and regulate horse racing in the public interest necessarily included the power to make decisions that incidentally affect private property rights.

The Commission was directed to hold a hearing.