Ontario
Racing
Commission
TB
RULING NUMBER COM SB 006/2009
COMMISSION HEARING TORONTO, ONTARIO – MARCH 26, 2009
IN THE MATTER OF THE RACING COMMISSION ACT, S.O. 2000, c.20;
AND IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL AND REQUEST FOR HEARING OF
STANDARDBRED LICENSEE PATRICK SHIBLEY
AND IN THE MATTER OF THE EX PARTE APPLICATION OF THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE ONTARIO RACING COMMISSION
Patrick Shibley ("SHIBLEY") appealed against Standardbred Official Ruling SB 40006 issued by the Western Fair Raceway Judges on January 20, 2009, whereby he was "prohibited from participating effective January 20, 2009". The penalty was ordered against SHIBLEY for the following reasons:
In accordance with ORC Rule 3.10, Mr. Shibley is prohibited from participating in any activity regulated by the Ontario Racing Commission as a result of Ruling # 07-109 of the Commonwealth of Virginia, Virginia Racing Commission and Massachusetts State Racing Commission Ruling No. 1002-08.
The Administration, on consent of SHIBLEY, filed an Ex Parte Application seeking the following relief:
(i) the appeal of SHIBLEY be allowed; and
(ii) Standardbred Official Ruling SB 40006 issued to SHIBLEY by the Western Fair Raceway Judges on January 20, 2009 be vacated and set aside.
On March 25, 2009, a Panel of the Ontario Racing Commission, comprised of Chair Rod Seiling, was convened to hear the Ex Parte Application.
Jennifer Friedman appeared as counsel for the Administration. Patrick Shibley was not in attendance.
Upon reviewing the Application Record and upon hearing the submissions of counsel, the Panel refused to accept the Application and ordered that a full Hearing was necessary.
The transcript with the Panel's Reasons for Decision is attached to this Ruling.
DATED at Toronto this 26th day of March, 2009.
BY ORDER OF THE COMMISSION
John L. Blakney Executive Director ONTARIO RACING COMMISSION
STANDARDBRED HEARING
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPEAL AND REQUEST FOR HEARING OF PATRICK SHIBLEY:
AND IN THE MATTER OF THE EX PARTE APPLICATION OF THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE ONTARIO RACING COMMISSION:
Held Before:
Rod Seiling, Chairman
These are proceedings, oral reasons and ruling in the above mentioned matter held before The Ontario Racing Commission, Re: PATRICK SHIBLEY, taken before Toronto Court Reporters, Suite 1410, 65 Queen Street West, Toronto, Ontario, at 10 Carlson Court, Suite 400, Toronto, Ontario, on the 25th day of March, 2009.
Appearances:
Ms. Jennifer Friedman for the Ontario Racing Commission Administration
INDEX OF EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT # PAGE #
- Administration application record..................................... 3
Hearing commenced ...
MR. FINES: All rise. Please come to order.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Please be seated. I'm ready when you are, Jennifer. There is no need for formality here but I guess I had better say this is a hearing of the Ontario Racing Commission under the Racing Commission Act, 2000 in the matter of Patrick Shibley.
MS. FRIEDMAN: Good morning, Mr. Chair. My name is Friedman, first initial J. I'm counsel for the Administration. You will see before you is an application record and I ask that that be marked as Exhibit 1.
MR. CHAIRMAN: So marked. Exhibit 1 filed by the Administration is an application record.
EXHIBIT NO. 1: Administration application record.
MS. FRIEDMAN: You will note that the application record includes an ex parte application along with six exhibits and draft ruling and an endorsed version of the application and draft ruling by the licensee Patrick Shibley. The relief sought by the Administration with the consent of the appellant Patrick Shibley is as follows: that the appeal of Patrick Shibley be allowed and that Standardbred official ruling SB40006 issued to Patrick Shibley by the Western Fair Raceway judges on January 20th, 2009 be vacated and set aside. The basis for this position is that rule 3.10 which is the applicable rule enumerated in the subject ruling was not applied, in our respectful submission, as it was intended. Rule 3.10 in the Rules of Standardbred Racing encompasses suspensions and in this case the licensee was banned in another jurisdiction. The jurisdiction was encompassed by the rule, however, the action, the regulatory action, in our respectful submission, is not encompassed. A ban can be distinguished from a suspension in the sense that a suspension is a situation where a person still has a license from the regulatory body whereas a ban is a situation where there is no license in play. Mr. Chair, I am happy to go through the chronology with you.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I don't think it is necessary. I have read your application record so I'm familiar with what is in there and I have had some time to think about it and reflect upon it and there are serious matters that are at play in this application and I think they are best dealt with at a fully hearing. So I am not going to approve the application and we will offer Mr. Shibley the benefit of a full hearing.
MS. FRIEDMAN: Just so that I can reiterate, this application was prepared on consent.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm aware of that but again, there are serious philosophical issues at play here and I think they deserve the benefit of a full hearing and Mr. Shibley by way of that will be offered a full hearing.
MS. FRIEDMAN: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
CERTIFIED CORRECT:____________________________
RAYMOND P. MACDONALD, B.A., CVR Commissioner of Oaths