Horse Racing Appeal Panel

90 Sheppard Avenue East

Suite 300

Toronto ON M2N 0A4

Comité d’appel des courses de chevaux

90, avenue Sheppard Est

Bureau 300

Toronto ON M2N 0A4

HORSE RACING APPEAL PANEL

TORONTO, ONTARIO – MAY 13, 2026

SB HRAP 05016 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 REQUEST FOR A STAY IN THE APPEAL OF

MICKEY SUDAR OF STANDARDBRED RULING NUMBER 3627648

Date of Issue:

May 13, 2026

Horse Racing Appeal Panel (Panel):

Stanley Sadinsky, K.C., Chair

Appellant:

Mickey Sudar

Representative for the Registrar:

Fred Brethour

Decision:

The Panel grants the request for a stay for the reasons set out below.

WHEREAS Mickey Sudar (“SUDAR”) is licensed with the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario (“AGCO”) as an Owner, Licence Number HP1233120;

AND WHEREAS SUDAR is the Owner of the horse, “INSTANTANEOUS”;

WHEREAS on March 27, 2026, the Alcohol and Gaming Commission issued Standardbred Ruling 3627648 wherein as a result of a Certificate of TCO2 Analysis, the horse INSTANTANEOUS was placed on the Judges List and was ineligible to race or enter in the Province of Ontario for 30 days, from March 27, 2026 to April 25, 2026, inclusive;

AND WHEREAS the horse INSTANTANEOUS competed in Race 7 for at Woodbine Mohawk Park on March 22, 2026, and returned a Certificate of TCO2 Analysis above the allowable limit, TCO2 Test Card Serial Number 532608113;

AND WHEREAS on March 30, 2026, SUDAR filed a Notice of Appeal and a Notice of Motion requesting a stay with the Panel to which the Registrar did not consent;

AND WHEREAS on April 22, 2026, the Panel convened to hear the motion for a request for a stay;

TAKE NOTICE that the Panel grants the motion for a stay, for the reasons set out below.

An edited transcript of the Panel’s Reasons for Decision is attached to this Notice.

DATED on this 13th day of May, 2026.

Stanley Sadinsky, K.C., Chair

Horse Racing Appeal Panel

HORSE RACING APPEAL PANEL (HRAP)

STANDARDBRED HEARING

IN THE MATTER OF THE HORSE RACING LICENCE ACT,

S.O. 2015 c. 38 Sched. 9 and the RULES OF STANDARDBRED RACING

AND IN THE MATTER OF A MOTION TO REQUEST AN ORDER OF THE HRAP TO GRANT A STAY STANDARBRED OF RULING NUMBER: 3627648

BY APPELLANT: MICKEY SUDAR

H E L D B E F O R E

Mr. Stanley Sadinsky Member

This is an excerpt of the proceedings in the above-mentioned matter held before the HORSE RACING APPEAL PANEL, Re: MICKEY SUDAR, taken before PROFESSIONAL COURT REPORTERS INC., 4881 Yonge Street, Suite 700, Toronto, Ontario, via an electronic video hearing, on the 22nd day of April 2026.

A P P E A R A N C E S

Mr. Fred Brethour -for the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario Registrar

Mickey Sudar -Appellant, self represented

CHAIR: First of all, I want to thank both Mr. Sudar and Mr. Brethour for their assistance in this matter. Their submissions have been very helpful. This is a very unique case. There is no doubt that the ruling in question provides that Mr. Sudar cannot enter this horse to race until after April the 25th. It appears as though he wishes to enter the horse prior to the 25th, but clearly not race the horse until after the 25th.

The 30-day-time-period that is provided not in the Rules or in any directive, but as a matter of practice, where a horse that is subjected to a positive test remains on the Judges’ List for at least that time and perhaps in some cases longer, is a very sensible provision in my view, particularly in cases involving Class 1 and Class 2 drugs, where the substance that was allegedly administered might remain in the horse's system. And, in order, to protect the horse, which is a prime consideration of the regulator, and should be for everyone involved in the industry, a longer time period, and in the case of Class 3 or TC02, at least Class 3, 30 days might or might not be appropriate, depending upon the drug in question.

The parties appear to be in agreement that TCO2 leaves a horse's system very soon after it's administered, perhaps after a day, or perhaps two.

Now the reason I say this case is unique is because applying the test that this Panel has repeatedly applied in cases involving applications for a stay, the Panel has made it very clear that the compartments of the test are not watertight, and they must be considered together. And the overall consideration, according to the decision in Livent v. Deloitte Touche which has been cited in stay cases in many, many instances, it is that the overall consideration is whether the interests of justice call for a stay in the circumstances of each particular case.

In my view, the important part of the 30-day provision is that the horse should not race during that 30-day period. I can understand why, in some cases, and perhaps in all cases, the rulings that are made include the term 'entered' as well as 'race'. But in the case of TCO2, the important thing to me is that this horse would not race until the full 30 days has run its course and for that reason, I am satisfied that in the interests of justice, the stay in this case should be granted. This horse can be entered today, provided it does not race until on or after April the 26th.

Now, I am not concerned with respect to any precedent that this case may provide because it's a very unusual circumstance where the entry is sought at a time well before the race in question will take place. I am not concerned that other trainers may, during the period of say, 30 days, perhaps at day 15, apply for a stay, and argue that they'll only enter their horse depending upon when it is they want to race the horse. If they want to race the horse during the 30-day period, I think the Panel would reject the application for a stay, unless there are other unusual circumstances. But that's not this case and this is a very, very, unusual case and I am satisfied that the interests of justice are served by permitting this horse to enter today, so long, as I said, that it does not race until the 26th of April or thereafter.