IN THE MATTER OF THE RACING COMMISSION ACT S.O. 2000, c.20;
AND IN THE MATTER IN THE APPEAL OF
THOROUGHBRED LICENSEE JOANNE OSBORNE
Thoroughbred licensee Joanne Osborne appealed the Stewards’ Ruling Number TB 4957/07 wherein THE HORSE WOMAN’S SCORN was declared ineligible to enter or start in a race in the Province of Ontario unless ORC Rule 12.22 was satisfied.
On August 28, 2007, a panel of the Ontario Racing Commission chaired by Rod Seiling convened to hear the appeal.
Luisa Ritacca appeared at the hearing for the Administration; Dan McMahon appeared for Joanne Osborne.
On hearing the evidence of the parties and on reading and reviewing the exhibits filed; and on consent of the parties, the panel agrees to the withdrawal of the appeal.
The Panel’s Reasons for Decision is attached to this ruling.
DATED at Toronto this 19^th^ day of September 2007.
BY ORDER OF THE COMMISSION ___________________________
John L. Blakney
Executive Director
REASONS FOR DECISION
Overview
- Thoroughbred licensee Joanne Osborne appealed the Stewards’ Ruling Number TB 4957/07 wherein THE HORSE WOMAN’S SCORN was declared ineligible to enter or start in a race in the Province of Ontario unless ORC Rule 12.22 was satisfied.
Background
Michael Osborne held a possessory lien on the thoroughbred horse WOMAN’S SCORN under the Repair Storage Lien Act.
This notice dated June 16, 2007 (tab 6, Exhibit 1) was presented to the Stewards at Fort Erie Racetrack, who on August 3, 2007, issued a revised Ruling, TB 4943/07 (tab 1, Exhibit 1) ruling the horse WOMAN’S SCORN ineligible to race in a claiming race in the Province of Ontario.
Luisa Ritacca, legal counsel for the Administration tabled Exhibit 2, a copy of notice dated August 24, 2007, confirming full discharge of the lien.
The Panel was presented a copy (Exhibit 3) of the Steward’s Ruling TB 5017/07 at Fort Erie Racetrack dated August 25, 2007, that allowed the horse to race in a claiming race in the Province of Ontario as a result of being provided a copy of the lien discharge thereby satisfying TB Rule 12.22.
Ms. Ritacca, confirmed by Mr. Osborne’s legal counsel, Dan McMahon, notified the Panel that both parties wanted to have the appeal withdrawn and were asking for approval of that request.
Ms. Ritacca and Mr. McMahon argued that the lien in any event, was deficient on the basis that:
(1) It was filed as a possessory lien and Mr. Osborne was not in possession of the horse.
(2) There was no supporting documentation filed with the lien.
(3) A lien claim of that type should be filed under the Innkeeper’s Act (allow trainer to claim expenses).
(4) It is inappropriate to try and fit an issue into an Act that it was not designed to deal with.
Issue
- Should the Panel agree to the joint request to allow the appeal to be withdrawn?
Decision
- The Panel issued an oral decision, after carefully considering the submission, to agree to the request to withdraw the appeal.
Reasons for Decision
Given the Stewards’ Ruling TB 5017 dated August 25, 2007, (Exhibit 3), the issue that was the alleged basis of the appeal was resolved.
The Panel, in reviewing the submissions, is troubled as to why there was a need for the hearing to proceed. Based on the evidence presented that the matter was resolved on August 25, 2007, with the Stewards’ ruling allowing the horse WOMAN’S SCORN now eligible to be entered and start in claiming races in the Province of Ontario”, the appeal could have and should have been ended by notifying the Commission.
This Commission is cognizant of its responsibilities under the Racing Commission Act (2000). It went to some length to provide a timely hearing on the issue. It is also charged to use its limited resources in a judicious manner. This means it is incumbent that in providing due process to all licensees, it ensures that process is not abused with frivolous hearings or hearings where the issues of the case have been resolved previously. Licensees and legal counsel appearing before this Commission should take note of the industry notice dated September 11, 2007 as it relates to the assessing of costs for appeals before the Commission lacking compelling and cogent reasons or lacking merit. That notice should not in any way be interpreted as a veiled threat, it is in its simplest terms, an advance notice to the industry that it will, in the future, assess costs for “frivolous” appeals.
The Panel also notes that the Administration has issued a policy directive to its staff re the inappropriateness in the future of attempts to use Repair Storage Lien Act to collect unpaid accounts and it supports the initiative.
The ORC is not a collection agency and should and will discourage any and all attempts to use it as such. The proper manner, as put before the Panel, for a trainer to collect unpaid bills is through the Innkeeper’s Act which has explicit relevant provisions. Other suppliers can file and get a judgment through the Civil Courts. The Panel notes that a judgment should be provided to the Stewards/Judges with any request to act under s12.22 of the Rules of Racing in the Province of Ontario.
DATED this 19^th^ day of September 2007.
______________________________
Rod Seiling
Chair