Horse Racing Appeal Panel

10 Carlson Court Suite 400 Toronto ON M9W 6A2

Comité d’appel des courses de chevaux

10, Carlson Court Bureau 400 Toronto ON M9W 6A2

HORSE RACING APPEAL PANEL

TORONTO, ONTARIO – MARCH 26, 2026

SB HRAP 05007 2026

NOTICE OF DECISION

THE APPEALS OF ANTHONY BEATON, JOHN BRIDGES, CASIE COLEMAN, MARK DUMAIN, JOHN FIELDING, DAVID MERCER, SSG STABLE, AND THREE LYONS RACING FROM THE SCRATCHING OF THEIR RESPECTIVE HORSES ON OCTOBER 13 AND 14, 2023 FROM ONTARIO SIRES STAKES GOLD SUPER FINALS

AT WOODBINE MOHAWK PARK

Date of Issue:

March 26, 2026

Horse Racing Appeal Panel (Panel):

Stanley Sadinsky, K.C, Chair

Appellants:

Anthony Beaton, John Bridges, Casie Coleman, Mark Dumain, John Fielding, David Mercer, SSG Stable and Three Lyons Racing

Counsel for the Registrar:

Elizabeth Maishlish

Faye Kidman

Counsel for the Responding Parties:

Jean-Marc MacKenzie

Decision:

The panel dismisses the appeals for the reasons set out below.

WHEREAS the Responding 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 November 12, 2025 the Panel dismissed the Registrar’s Motion to dismiss the Appeals without a hearing of the owners whose horses were scratched out of the relevant Ontario Sire Stakes Gold Super Finals.

AND WHEREAS on March 4, 2026 the Panel convened to hear the Appeals, reserving its decision;

TAKE NOTICE that the Panel dismisses the appeals for the reasons set out below.

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

DATED on this 26th day of March, 2026.

Stanley Sadinsky, K.C., Chair

Horse Racing Appeal Panel

REASONS FOR DECISION – BEATON ET AL – JURISDICTION

INTRODUCTION

The Horse Racing Appeal Panel (PANEL) convened on March 4, 2026, to hear a preliminary issue in the Appeals of Anthony Beaton, John Bridges, Casie Coleman, Mark Dumain, John Fielding, David Mercer, SSG Stable and Three Lyons Racing (the OWNERS). These Appellants are owners of various Standardbred horses that were entered to race in Ontario Sire Stakes Gold Super Finals (the FINALS) at Woodbine Mohawk Park on October 13 and 14, 2023. On the late afternoon of October 13, all of their horses were scratched from these races as their trainer, Anthony Beaton, was fully suspended.

In their Appeals, the OWNERS seek a re-allocation and a re-distribution of purse monies in their respective races in which their horses were entered in order to deliver to them the “guaranteed starting fee” of $3,000 that represents 1% of the total purse of $300,000 in each race for each applicable horse. (1%).

The Registrar of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario (REGISTRAR; AGCO) has submitted that this Panel lacks the requisite jurisdiction to grant the remedy that the Appellants seek. These Reasons deal with the preliminary issue of jurisdiction.

Elizabeth Maishlish and Faye Kidman appeared for the REGISTRAR and Jean-Marc MacKenzie appeared for the OWNERS.

For the purpose of dealing with the issue of jurisdiction, the Secretariat of the PANEL filed an Appeal Book containing 4 Tabs that consists of the Notices of Appeal, the Amended Notices of Appeal, the Decision of the PANEL on the REGISTRAR’S earlier Motion to Dismiss the Appeals without a hearing and the Notice of this Electronic Hearing that was also served on the connections of the first 5 finishers in the three FINALS in question. The REGISTRAR filed a Hearing Brief dealing with the issue of Jurisdiction that contains 3 Schedules, and a Book of Authorities that contains 8 Tabs. The OWNERS have also filed a Hearing Brief containing 5 Parts and an attached Schedule, and a Book of Authorities containing 3 Tabs.

After reading the above noted material and hearing the submissions of counsel, the PANEL reserved its decision and it is now delivered with Reasons.

THE ISSUE

The issue for determination is simple to state: does the PANEL have the jurisdiction to grant the remedy that the OWNERS seek? Mr. MacKenzie also argued that the issue of jurisdiction is tied to the question as to whether the REGISTRAR breached the Rules of Standardbred Racing (the RULES) by scratching the horses.

THE RELEVANT LEGISLATION, RULES OF STANDARDBRED RACING (RULES) and the ONTARIO SIRE STAKES GOLD SUPER FINAL RULES (O.S.S. RULES)

The Horse Racing Licence Act (HRLA)

5(1) Subject to the regulations, the Commission through the Registrar, shall make rules for the conduct of horse racing in any of its forms.

7(1) The Horse Racing Appeal Panel is established under that name in English…

8(1) If the rules of racing provide for an appeal to the Panel, a person who considers themselves aggrieved by a decision of a…judge...or officer or employee of the Commission may appeal the decision to the Panel…

(2) On hearing the appeal, the Panel may confirm or vary the decision being appealed or set it aside.

20(6) After holding a hearing, the Tribunal may by order,

(a) confirm or set aside the proposed order;

(b) direct the Registrar to take the action that the Tribunal considers the Registrar ought to take to give effect to the purposes of the Act.

20(7) In making an order, the Tribunal may substitute its opinion for that of the Registrar.

The Rules of Standardbred Racing

1.09 If any case occurs which is not or which is alleged not to be provided for by the rules, it shall be determined by the Judges or the Registrar as the case may be, in such manner as they think is in the best interests of racing.

3.10 When the licensee is suspended by the Registrar…the suspended licensee shall be prohibited from participating in any activity regulated by the Commission. The suspension shall, in addition, render ineligible for declaration or starting, every horse in which the suspended licensee has any ownership interest or trainer responsibility. Eligibility for affected horses in such cases may be restored by transfer of the suspended licensee’s interest or responsibilities to another licensed person, if approved by the Judges of the meeting.

9.13 The detection of any drug in an official sample by the Official Chemist which constitutes a positive test shall disqualify the owner from participation in the purse distribution….In such case, the purse monies so affected shall be redistributed among the other horses in the race entitled to same…

18.07 If the placing system is specified in the conditions, the purse shall be distributed according to the standing of the horses in the summary. In order to share in the purse distribution each horse must complete the race…

22.03 …For the purposes of this rule, the determination of the start is when the horses have passed the starting point and have been released by the Starter.

(e) The horses shall be deemed to have started when released by the Starter at the starting point which will be the official start…A horse shall be deemed to be a Starter when the horse’s nose has reached the starting line.

24.01 Subject to the Horse Racing Licence Act, 2015, a person aggrieved by a decision or ruling of the Judges, Registrar or delegated official made pursuant to these Rules, may appeal the decision or ruling to the Horse Racing Appeal Panel (HRAP), unless otherwise specified in the Rules.

26.08 Whenever a trainer is suspended under any provision of the Rules, any horse trained by him/her…

may, with the consent of the Judges at the meeting, be released to the care of another licensed trainer and may race.

ONTARIO SIRE STAKES GOLD SUPER FINAL RULES – 2023 RACING GUIDE

The purse for each Gold Super Final is $300,000 and all starters will receive a share of the purse. The winner of the race will receive fifty per cent (50%) of the total purse; one per cent (1%) of the total purse will be paid to each horse finishing sixth through last; the remainder of the purse for the race will be divided 50-24-16-10 for the horses finishing second through fifth (Registrar’s Hearing Brief, Schedule B; Appellants’ Table of Authorities).

THE SUBMISSIONS

Ms. Maishlish argued that the HRAP is a body created by statute (the HRLA) and derives all of its jurisdiction from the HRLA and the RULES. It has no inherent jurisdiction at common law. She submitted that O.S.S. Races are governed by the RULES and that there is nothing in the RULES that provides for the payment of purse money such as the 1% starting award. Accordingly, she contended that the PANEL has no jurisdiction to provide this remedy to the OWNERS.

Ms. Maishlish further argued that in order for the OWNERS to receive the 1%, their horses must have started in the races in question and they did not. Ms. Maishlish contended that the 1% is not a “starting fee” as the OWNERS allege but rather a payment to horses that start and finish in the race. What constitutes a “start” is defined in RULE 22.03 (e) and these horses clearly did not start.

Furthermore, the O.S.S. RULES provide that a horse that finishes 6th through last in the race shall receive the 1% payment and again, these horses did not finish 6th through last.

Ms. Maishlish conceded that the PANEL has often dealt with the redistribution of purse monies. For example, in cases where a horse is disqualified due to interference or a positive drug test and there is a reordering of the placement of the horses in the race, purse money is redistributed pursuant to the RULES but this is not such a case. (Rule 9.13)

Finally, Ms. Maishlish argued that even if the horses were scratched not in accordance with the RULES as Mr. MacKenzie alleged, the OWNERS are still not entitled to the 1% payment. To receive it, by the terms of the O.S.S. RULES, the horses had to race and finish in the 6th through last place and this did not happen.

In sum, Ms. Maishlish submitted that the PANEL cannot grant the OWNERS the remedy that they seek and have no jurisdiction to do so.

Mr. MacKenzie argued that the PANEL has on numerous occasions ordered a redistribution of purse monies for a variety of reason and has the jurisdiction to do so in this case. (Dalos (Re), [2022] CanLII 8650 (ON HRAP) He submitted that all of the OWNERS’ horses earned the right to race in the FINALS as they had paid the sustaining fees, amassed a sufficient number of points in preliminary races to become eligible to race in the FINALS and were deprived of the right to race by the wrongful scratching of their horses. In essence, he argued that eligibility to race is sufficient to warrant the payment of the 1% for each horse scratched.

Mr. MacKenzie also argued that the combined effect of Sections 8 (2), 20 (6) and 20 (7) of the HRLA provides the PANEL with the jurisdiction to grant the OWNERS the 1 % remedy.

ANALYSIS AND DECISION

A tribunal may lack jurisdiction for a variety of reasons, e.g. where the party bringing the matter forward has no standing; where there is no jurisdiction over the subject matter; where there is no territorial jurisdiction; and, where it has no power to grant the remedy being sought. (see Christi Ford, Remedies in Canadian Administrative Law: A Roadmap to a Parallel Legal Universe, [2018] Allard School of Law, University of British Columbia)

I agree with the submissions of Ms. Maishlish that the PANEL is a creature of statute and derives all of its powers from the HRLA and the RULES. The PANEL has no inherent jurisdiction at common law or equity. I find that there is nothing in the HRLA or the RULES that provides the PANEL with the jurisdiction to grant the 1% remedy that the OWNERS seek. (Boyd (Re ), 2021 CanLII 88310 (ON HRAP))

In addition, in this case the O.S.S. RULES that deal with the 1% payment, require that in order for a horse to receive this amount, it must start in the race in question and finish from 6th to last place. This did not occur. What constitutes a “start” is set out in Rule 22.03 (e) of the RULES and clearly, the horses in question did not start. Even if the scratching of the horses by the Judges was contrary to the RULES as Mr. MacKenzie argued, (although seemingly authorized by Rules 3.10 and 26.08), in my view, the OWNERS are still not entitled to the 1% payment.

Mr. MacKenzie argued that in order to receive the 1% payment, it is sufficient that the horses in question were eligible to start and race in the FINALS. While there is no doubt that these horses were eligible, I disagree. In order to make this finding, the PANEL would in essence be re-writing the Rules of Standardbred Racing and the O.S.S. RULES and this, it is not empowered to do. (Section 5 (1), HRLA)

Finally, Mr. MacKenzie relied on Sections 20 (6) and 20 (7) of the HRLA to support the argument that this PANEL has the jurisdiction to make the Order requested by the OWNERS. In my view, these Sections do not apply to the circumstances of this case. These Sections deal with the powers of the Licensing Appeal Tribunal and not the PANEL. The term “Tribunal” as found in these Sections is defined in Section 1 of the HRLA as follows – “ Tribunal” means the Licence Appeal Tribunal established under the Licence Appeal Tribunal Act, 1999…”

THE RESULT

In the result, the Appeals of the OWNERS are hereby dismissed for want of jurisdiction.