RULING NUMBER COM GEN 004/2011

COMMISSION HEARING TORONTO, ONTARIO – JUNE 9, 2011

IN THE MATTER OF THE RACING COMMISSION ACT S.O. 2000, c.20;

AND IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL AND REQUEST FOR HEARING BY

HANOVER RACEWAY

On March 16, 2011, John L. Blakney (“Blakney”), Executive Director of the Ontario Racing Commission (“ORC”), issued a Notice of Decision which denied a February 14, 2011 request by Hanover Raceway (“Hanover”) to conduct Signature level standardbred race programs.

On March 18, 2011, Hanover submitted a Request for Hearing and Appeal against the decision of Blakney.

On April 13, 2011, the date for the Hearing of the Appeal was set for June 9, 2011.

On May 20, 2011, Hanover advised the ORC of its intention to withdraw the Appeal.

On June 9, 2011, a Panel of the Commission consisting of the Chair, Rod Seiling, was convened to hear this matter.

Hanover was represented, in person, by Gordon Dougan, General Manager.

Anthony Williams appeared as counsel for the Administration.

The Appeal was withdrawn by Hanover, on consent.

The Panel ordered, pursuant to ORC policy Directive No. 3–2010, Rules of Procedure – Appeal withdrawals, Rule 2.11, dated June 7, 2010, that Hanover shall pay forthwith $500 in costs to the ORC.

DATED this 15th day of June, 2011.

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 HANOVER RACEWAY, OWNER/DRIVER/TRAINER FOR STANDARDBRED RACE HORSES

Held Before:

Rod Seiling, Chairman

These are an excerpt of the proceedings in the above mentioned matter held before The Ontario Racing Commission, Re: HANOVER RACEWAY, taken before Toronto Court Reporters, Suite 1410, 65 Queen Street West, Toronto, Ontario, at 10 Carlson Court, Suite 400, Toronto, Ontario, on the 9th day of June, 2011.

Appearances:

Anthony Williams,

for the Ontario Racing Commission Administration

Hearing continued ...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, I here you. The problem I have, sir, is precedent. Other licensees bring the same issues that you have and in fact you along with other tracks have hounded away at this Commission about controlling our costs and if we were to take the willing extent of disbelief and say okay, I agree with you and we will waive the costs then what would I say to another licensee who comes and withdraws their appeal and we say, no, we have incurred all these expenses preparing for your appeal.

MR. DUGGAN: What if we change the directive to include a statement that if the reason for the appeal is the inability to give timely notice then that's a different scenario as opposed to a traditional appeal where somebody gets fined and they wait until the last minute in an appeal and then drop it. I certainly have not tried to waste this Commission's time.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I certainly appreciate that and I'm certainly prepared because I would consider it a mitigating factor but I have grave difficulty because the lineup would be out the door here if I simply just say go home, there is no penalty. That would not be a good thing for this Commission but I'm certainly prepared to discount it and rather than the $1,500 my sense would be, recognizing the whole raft of mitigating factors, $500 would be appropriate. So I will rule that the fee to be assessed Hanover for withdrawing their appeal will be $500.00.

MR. DUGGAN: I appreciate that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, thank you. Any other questions?

MR. DUGGAN: No. I just hope that the Board will discuss where it is going with this model, to take into account tracks that are heavily investing and trying to grow their businesses. We feel that it is stifling us and will result in less horses in our area, less horsemen in our area and less jockeys in our area.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I hear you. It is not my intent to enter into that type of discussion today. There are far more appropriate avenues. All I will say for the record is that the industry had the opportunity to come up with a new framework and a new Ontario Racing Program, weren't capable of doing it, even after we gave them an extra two months to do it and that quite frankly is the major reason why some of the things came late to you is because you as the industry asked for the two month delay. We would have been on time and people would have had much more timely responses if it hadn't been for the delay that we graciously as a Commission allowed the industry their request.

MR. DUGGAN: And you and I both know that there are sixteen different tracks and twelve to fourteen different owners of those tracks and many of them with different agendas, different situations. Some of them are for profit, some of them have shareholders and some of them are not made up of a Board of Directors that are actual horsemen in the area so they all have different goals.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We are aware of the varying different agendas and why certain entities are in business. Overall though we still need to take into account what is best for the business of horse racing in the Province of Ontario.

MR. DUGGAN: And I'm only concerned about what is better for the business of Hanover Raceway.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We understand that and hopefully they both can coincide.

MR. DUGGAN: I hope.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, sir.

CERTIFIED CORRECT:_________________________________

RAYMOND P. MACDONALD, B.A., CVR

Commissioner of Oaths