Larry D. Lane (Re), 2005 CanLII 81025

On May 10, 2005, the Executive Director issued an Order of Immediate Suspension and a Notice of Proposed Order to revoke the licence of Standardbred Owner/Trainer Larry D. Lane pursuant to sections 21 and 23 of the Racing Commission Act, 2000 (the "Act"). Mr. Lane requested a hearing pursuant to sections 22 and 23 of the Act.

On June 29, 2005, a Panel consisting of Vice-Chair Larry Todd and Commissioners Bernard Brennan and George Kelly convened for the hearing. Brendan Van Niejenhuis represented the Administration as counsel and Larry D. Lane represented himself.

On reading the Agreed Statement of Facts and the Exhibits, filed, and on hearing the submissions of counsel and of Mr. Lane on his own behalf, the Panel quashed the Director's Proposed Order and Immediate Suspension and ordered that Larry D. Lane be fully suspended for a period of three (3) years effective June 29, 2005, and ordered that section 26(3) of the

Act shall not be applied to this suspension.

The Panel's reasons for decision form part of the transcript of the hearing and are attached to this Ruling.

DATED this 25^th^ day of July, 2005.

John L. Blakney

Executive Director

Hearing conducted in the Hearing Room of the Ontario Racing Commission, 7th Floor, 20 Dundas Street West, Toronto, Ontario, on Wednesday the 29th day of June, 2005.

L. Tanaka Chair

J. Garthson

G. Kelly

B. Van Niejenhuis Counsel for the Administration

Larry Lane, Appellant For Himself

Also Present:

T. Stone

Reasons for Decision

--- Upon commencing June 29th, 2005, 10:41 a. m.

REASONS FOR DECISION:

THE CHAIR: The following are the panel's unanimous reasons for decision.

This is a hearing requested and implemented by Mr. Lane pursuant to Section 23(5) of the Ontario Racing Commission Act with respect to notices under both Section 22 and 23 of our governing statute, in particular being an order for immediate suspension and a notice of proposed order.

We have before us, and we must thank counsel for same, a very helpful agreed upon statement of facts found at Exhibit 1, tab 1, and also a signed copy of same, being Exhibit 2. We are bound by these facts as evidence and they are self-explanatory by a very significant error in judgement and de facto fraud on the racing industry by Mr. Lane.

We must take note, however, also of the very significant and important fact that Mr. Lane, himself, through documentation found at Exhibit 1, tab 10, came forward after an apparently unsuccessful investigation to show that the subject horses were three-year-olds and not two-year-olds as registered. We were told and must accept as fact, which was not challenged or cross-examined on, that Mr. Lane had an apparent attack with his conscience which was the triggering event for the letter to Mr. Smith, found at tab 10, Exhibit 1.

Additionally, we have had before us today substantial character and reputation evidence and, in particular, the evidence of Mr. Forrest that was for the most part not available, or before the Executive Director.

We are prepared for the purposes of this hearing, to accept that reasonableness should be the standard for considering a review of any proposed order of the Executive Director, however, we are prepared in the circumstances before us, and on the evidence we have heard, and are, in fact, obliged pursuant to the statute to consider our jurisdiction under Section 22.6 and 22.7, as well as Section 23.3 of the statute for the following reasons:

a) The proposed order in paragraph E, subparagraph 8 appears to have misstated the evidence before us and we in particular refer to tab 10, Exhibit 1, and also deals with horses about which no evidence was heard or no reference was made in the agreed upon statement of facts.

b) The substantial character evidence that goes to the conclusion that the Executive Director in subparagraph 19 of paragraph E of the proposed order, and the likelihood that Mr. Lane will, quote, "...not act in accordance with the law or with integrity, honesty, or in the public interest, and that he will carry on activities in contravention of the Act...", closed quotes, in the future.

c) The fact as acknowledged by Judge Thatcher in his 24 years of experience in the field that an alleged offender apparently turned himself in and revealed the truth at a point in time when he had apparently succeeded in misleading at least one expert, and I reference there, Exhibit 5 before us.

None of the above, however, can downplay the seriousness and the attack Mr. Lane perpetuated on the integrity of the racing industry for a lengthy period of time. In these circumstances, we must assess a significant and finite penalty. We are therefore proposing to bury the order of the Executive Director at tab 2, Exhibit Number 1, both with respect to its Section 22 and Section 23 aspects, by quashing this order and substituting a full suspension of all Mr. Lane's licences for a period of three years commencing May 31st, 2005.

Mr. Van Niejenhuis, is there anything else we need to deal with?

MR. VAN NIEJENHUIS: I don't believe so. You might make a notation as to what Mr. Lane should do at the conclusion to reinstate his licence. I think in the absence of any comment it would simply be apply again, and that's fine, but if there was some direction...

THE CHAIR: Well, he has a licence today, has he not? It was suspended by the judges?

MR. VAN NIEJENHUIS: That licence was suspended. I don't know if Mr. Lane's birthday has passed from the time of the last licence

MR. LANE: Yes, it has.

MR. VAN NIEJENHUIS: It has?

THE CHAIR: So it would be our view that the licence that he had that was suspended as of May 31st is suspended for three years from that date, at which point in time he can re-apply. But we're not, in our proposed reasons, leaving the issue to the discretion that you refer to, under Section 26.

MR. VAN NIEJENHUIS: Thank you. I just wanted to make sure that was clear. That's all.

THE CHAIR: So that's on the record. And Mr. Lane, is there anything else that needs to be dealt with?

MR. LANE: The fine remains the same?

THE CHAIR: That fine wasn't before us. The judges issued the fine and on the evidence before us, that was not appealed and we can't deal with that. If you had chosen to appeal the judges' penalty that would have been before us, but it wasn't, so I can't deal with that.

MR. LANE: So three years from May 31st?

THE CHAIR: 2005.

MR. LANE: 2005. Okay.

THE CHAIR: Thanks very much for everyone's help and assistance here today.

--- Whereupon proceedings adjourned at 1:41 p. m.

I HEREBY CERTIFY THE FOREGOING

to be a true and accurate transcription

of a cassette tape recording

to the best of my skill and ability.

MAUREEN BYNOE, Stenomask Reporter

B. A., Commissioner of Oaths