Beaton Owners Motion for Costs, 2026 CanLII 18861

10 Carlson Court Suite 400 Toronto ON M9W 6A2

10, Carlson Court Bureau 400 Toronto ON M9W 6A2

TORONTO, ONTARIO – FEBRUARY 10, 2026

SB HRAP 05003 2026

NOTICE OF DECISION

IN THE MATTER OF THE HORSE RACING LICENCE ACT, S.O. 2015 C. 38 Sched. 9;

AND IN THE MATTER OF A MOTION FOR COSTS RELATING TO THE PANEL'S DECISION ON NOVEMBER 12, 2025 (SB HRAP 05045 2025) ON A MOTION TO DISMISS BROUGHT BY THE REGISTRAR IN THE APPEALS OF ANTHONY BEATON, JOHN BRIDGES, APRIL CAMPBELL, CASIE COLEMAN, MARK DUMAIN, JIM FIELDING, JOHN FIELDING, HUTT RACING, KEVIN MCKINLAY, DAVID MERCER, MAC NICHOL, SSG STABLE, THREE LYONS RACING, ROSS WARRINER AND ROBERT WOODBURN

Date of Issue:

February 10, 2026

Horse Racing Appeal Panel (Panel):

Stanley Sadinsky, K.C, Chair

Appellants:

Anthony Beaton, John Bridges, April Campbell, Casie Coleman, Mark Dumain, Jim Fielding, John Fielding, Hutt Racing, Kevin McKinlay, David Mercer, Mac Nichol, SSG Stable, Three Lyons Racing, Ross Warriner and Robert Woodburn

Counsel for the Registrar (Responding Party):

Elizabeth Maishlish

Faye Kidman

Counsel for the Appellants (the Moving Parties):

Jean-Marc MacKenzie

Decision:

The Panel dismisses the Motion for the Reasons set out below.

WHEREAS the Moving Parties are licensed with the Alcohol and Gaming Commission (“Commission”);

AND WHEREAS the Deputy Registrar of the Commission and the Judges at Woodbine Mohawk Park and Flamboro Downs made decisions on the afternoon of October 13, 2023 to scratch the respective horses of the Responding Parties entered to race on October 13, 14 and 18 as a result of their trainer Anthony Beaton being fully suspended on the afternoon of October 13th;

AND WHEREAS all of the Responding Parties have appealed the aforesaid decisions and seek to have the race records of their respective horses updated to reflect that the scratching of such horses was done in error;

AND WHEREAS the Responding Parties who had horses that were scheduled to race in an

Ontario Sire Stakes Gold Super Final seek a redistribution of the purse monies in their respective

races in order to deliver to them the guaranteed starting fee of $3,000 for each applicable horse;

AND WHEREAS on December 19, 2025 the Appellants filed a Notice of Motion for costs relating to the panel's decision on November 12, 2025 on a Motion to dismiss brought by the Registrar;

AND WHEREAS on January 30, 2026, the Panel convened to hear the Registrar’s Motion, reserving its decision;

TAKE NOTICE that the Appellants’ Motion is hereby dismissed.

The Panel’s Reasons for Decision are attached to this Notice.

DATED on this 10th day of February, 2026.

Stanley Sadinsky, K.C., Chair

Horse Racing Appeal Panel

REASONS FOR DECISION - BEATON OWNERS MOTION FOR COSTS

The Horse Racing Appeal Panel (the PANEL) convened on January 30, 2026 to hear a Motion for Costs arising from the proceedings held before the PANEL on October 9, 2025 that led to its decision dated November 12, 2025 (SB HRAP 05045 2025). In that proceeding, the Registrar of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario (REGISTRAR, AGCO) brought a Motion to Dismiss the Appeals without a hearing of the owners of various Standardbred horses, (the Moving Parties in this Motion), who had sought two remedies. First, all of the owners sought an order from the Panel directing Standardbred Canada to update the race records of their respective horses to reflect that the scratching of their horses that were entered to race on October 13, 14 and 18, 2023 was done in error. And second, those owners of horses that were scheduled to race in Ontario Sire Stakes Gold Super Finals sought a redistribution of purse monies in order to deliver to them the guaranteed starting fee of $3,000 for each applicable horse. In the result, the PANEL dismissed the Appeals without a hearing of all of the owners with respect to the race records issue but not the Appeals of the relevant owners with respect to purse redistribution.

On this Motion, Jean-Marc MacKenzie appeared for the Moving Parties and Elizabeth Maishlish and Faye Kidman appeared for the REGISTRAR of the AGCO. Following the submissions of the parties, the PANEL reserved its decision and it is now delivered with Reasons. THE BACKGROUND AND THE SUBMISSIONS

Rule 13.1 of the PANEL’S Rules of Procedure reads in part as follows:

Where a party believes that another party in the proceeding has acted unreasonably, frivolously, vexatiously or in bad faith, that party may make a request to the HRAP for costs …

Mr. MacKenzie did not argue that the REGISTRAR acted “frivolously, vexatiously or in bad faith” but only that the REGISTRAR acted “unreasonably” in bringing the Motion to Dismiss the owners’ Appeals without a hearing. He argued that the REGISTRAR acted unreasonably both prior to bringing the Motion and then in bringing the Motion itself.

As to the time period prior to the bringing of the REGISTRAR’S Motion, Mr. MacKenzie argued that at the previous Pre-Hearing Conferences, the REGISTRAR indicated that she was ready to proceed directly to a hearing of the Appeals but later changed her position and sought an Order Dismissing the Appeals without a hearing. This he argued, put the owners to additional unnecessary expense.

As to the bringing of the Motion itself, Mr. MacKenzie argued that this was unreasonable within the meaning of Rule 13.1 as the REGISTRAR raised issues such as lack of standing, estoppel and the operation of Rule 26.08 of the Rules of Standardbred Racing, all of which were rejected by the PANEL in its Decision. As to the REGISTRAR’S argument that the Appeals with respect to the updating of the race records should be dismissed without a hearing, which the PANEL ultimately accepted, this claim he submitted was ancillary to the claim for purse redistribution and dealt only with remedy and not with the right to bring the Appeals.

Ms. Maishlish argued that as to the time period prior to the bringing of the Motion to Dismiss when the REGISTRAR appeared ready to proceed directly to the hearing of the Appeals but subsequently decided to bring the Motion, this was due to receiving further clarification as to the owners’ position on the issues. And as to the bringing of the Motion itself, Ms. Maishlish argued that as she was partially successful on the Motion in that the PANEL did dismiss the Appeals dealing with the race records issue, bringing the Motion forward was clearly reasonable. Although she was unsuccessful in securing an Order Dismissing the Appeals without a hearing with respect to the purse redistribution issue, Ms. Maishlish argued that notwithstanding that the REGISTRAR’s position was not accepted, it was reasonable to argue that the PANEL had no jurisdiction to grant the remedy being sought. This, of course, is the issue to be determined on the Appeal itself.

ANALYSIS AND DECISION

The PANEL has previously held that the bar for determining whether a party has acted unreasonably within the meaning of Rule 13.1 is high. This is because in regulatory proceedings it is desirable that licensees in particular should not feel inhibited from pursing appeals because they fear that if unsuccessful, they may be burdened with an order to pay costs. The same principle applies to the regulator who is charged with the duty to act in the public interest. (Boyd (Re), 2020 Can LII 94846 (ON HRAP) Costs should only be awarded in exceptional circumstances where a party is found to have acted “frivolously, vexatiously or in bad faith” or where their position or conduct is patently unreasonable.

It can hardly be said that the REGISTRAR’S Motion was unreasonably brought in this case (not governed by or based on reason) when the REGISTRAR succeeded in securing an Order Dismissing the Appeals of the owners without a hearing with respect to the updating of their respective horses’ race records (Behan (Re), 2025 Can LII 120595 (ON HRAP). The Appeals with respect to the matter regarding purse redistribution raises a novel issue, one that turns on whether the Panel has the jurisdiction to award the remedy that is being sought. I find that the REGISTRAR acted reasonably within the meaning of Rule 13.1 when she brought her Motion notwithstanding that the PANEL determined that a full hearing was merited to resolve this issue.

In the result, the owners’ Motion for Costs is dismissed.