RULING NUMBER COM SB 039/2011

COMMISSION HEARING TORONTO, ONTARIO – AUGUST 16, 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

STANDARDBRED LICENSEE JODY JAMIESON

On June 22, 2011, standardbred Driver, Jody Jamieson, (“JAMIESON”) (ORC Licence #R7773), appealed Judges’ Ruling SB42629, dated June 21, 2011, wherein he was suspended for 5 days (June 26 to 30 inclusive) for driving in a careless and/or reckless manner in the stretch during the 2nd race, on June 14, 2011, at Mohawk Racetrack, in violation of Rules 22.05.01 (j), of the Rules of Standardbred Racing.

On August 16, 2011, a Panel of the Ontario Racing Commission (“ORC”) consisting of Commissioner Brenda Walker as Chair, was convened to hear the appeal.

Rick Rier appeared as agent for the Administration. JAMIESON attended the hearing in person and was represented by Robert B. Burgess, Q.C.

Upon hearing the testimony of Judge Tom Miller, Driver Jody Jamieson and, upon reviewing the exhibits filed and, upon hearing the submissions of Rier and counsel, the Panel allowed the appeal in part and amended the driving suspension to 3 days, to be served August 21, 22, and 23, 2011.

A transcript of the Panel’s Oral Decision is attached to this Ruling.

Dated at Toronto, Ontario this 24th day of August 2011.

BY ORDER OF THE COMMISSION ____________________________

John L. Blakney

Executive Director

ONTARIO RACING COMMISSION

STANDARDBRED HEARING

IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL AND REQUEST FOR HEARING OF JODY JAMIESON:

Held Before:

Brenda Walker, Commissioner

These are the oral reasons and ruling in the above mentioned matter held before The Ontario Racing Commission, Re: JODY JAMIESON, taken before Toronto Court Reporters, Suite 1410, 65 Queen Street West, Toronto, Ontario, at 10 Carlson Court, Suite 400, Mississauga , Ontario, on the 16h day of August, 2011.

Appearances:

Rick Rier

agent for the Ontario Racing Commission Administration

Robert Burgess for Jody Jamieson

Hearing continued ...

MS. WALKER: Please be seated. Jody Jamieson has appealed SB42629 a five day driving suspension from Rule 22.05.01 driving in a reckless or careless manner. After hearing the testimony of Judge Miller and Jody Jamieson I have allowed the appeal in part and that is that the violation was not careless or reckless. He did not drive in a manner to intentionally cause interference with disregard to the other drivers but he did cause interference while on a break and has been placed accordingly. Fine or suspension shall be discussed and given accordingly so because there is a fine for interference is there not and causing a break? He has been charged with causing the break - or having a break and causing interference. There has been a placing so a discussion as to whether there is any other further either a penalty or a driving infraction that goes with that? I need to know which.

MR. MILLER: For causing interference there is or there can be a penalty for it but that's up to your discretion in deciding on that.

MS. WALKER: Okay, so that's what I wanted.

MR. MILLER: Yes, we have gone away from or we don't usually give a fine for that. I just wanted to make that clear.

MS. WALKER: Okay, just before there is nothing in my book to go on.

MR. BURGESS: Just possibly to expedite things here and we don't need to get into all the discussion about what happened after the fine. I don't think it is going to serve anybody any good because there is not usually a money fine for that.

MS. WALKER: That's all I ‑‑

MR. BURGESS: There is a three day, normally a three day, driving suspension. In this incidence ‑‑

MS. WALKER: You had mentioned that earlier. That's why I wanted to ‑‑

MR. BURGESS: As I say, our submission would be, to make it simple, have a three day driving suspension. Mr. Jamieson will plead guilty to that on the basis that he is given credit for the day he has already served.

MS. WALKER: Okay.

MR. MILLER: We will speak to that.

MR. RIER: Is it your decision that it will be reduced from five to three?

MS. WALKER: Yes. I wanted to make sure that that is what the normal is, okay because I wasn't sure whether there was - because you didn't give me anything to go by what the normal procedure is, if that's what my ruling was. So I am going to give him a three day driving suspension but I have downgraded it from careless and reckless to interference while on a break. Okay?

MR. MILLER: So if I can just speak for a second just because Mr. Burgess mentioned the one day that he has already served. If that is going to be your decision and it is our contention that Mr. Jamieson served that for a totally separate issue. He did not serve that for any interference or careless or reckless. He was not charged with that and he did not serve a day for it.

MS. WALKER: Okay.

MR. MILLER: That's your ruling?

MS. WALKER: No, you will ‑‑

MR. BURGESS: I'll speak to that also.

MS. WALKER: Okay. Well, we haven't got into that part. Now are we going to go into part two and discuss that or not now?

MR. MILLER: Well, Mr. Burgess brought it up when he said that Mr. Jamieson had already served one day.

MR. BURGESS: Yes, he has served one day.

MR. MILLER: That's the only reason I am speaking to it.

MS. WALKER: Mr. Burgess, would you like to speak?

MR. BURGESS: Just to clarify where we are possibly for the panel there were attempts to have Mr. Jamieson come in to discuss this. He had all kinds of other things at this time of year. He has apologized for not getting in. He got in within five - how many days after?

MR. JAMIESON: It was ...

MR. BURGESS: Five days or something but whatever it is, in the midst of that controversy he was assessed or he was not allowed to drive ten drives one night at Mohawk and to suggest that isn't part of this case doesn't really make sense because there was no charge. He wasn't charged with that. He was just asked to not drive that night so I think ‑‑

MS. WALKER: I guess the question is did you give him the day because he did not show up for the hearing or did he take the day because he was already starting his suspension.

MR. BURGESS: No, no. There was - no, it was because of controversy about what day he was to come in, whether it was Thursday. I don't think you really want to listen to the ins and outs of that.

MS. WALKER: No, I don't but all I want to know is whether the day was because he didn't show up and because he didn't show up they gave him the day and if that is the case then he is still going to sit out three days, okay?

MR. BURGESS: Fine.

MS. WALKER: Because that is not tied to the original case.

MR. BURGESS: The only problem with that day they gave him, they gave him a one day suspension and they didn't charge him with anything. So it is very hard to understand where it fits.

MS. WALKER: Well, I believe it was because he hadn't showed up to meet with the Judges and that is why he was taken off all his drives that night. Now if you would like ‑‑

MR. MILLER: I'd love to.

MS. WALKER: ‑‑ to clarify it?

MR. MILLER: Mr. Jamieson was asked to come in after the incident that we just saw. We said can you come in Thursday, he said yes, I'll be there Thursday or Friday. He did not show Thursday. We called him Thursday night, I'll be there tomorrow night. He did not appear before the Judges on Friday night. He was given a Notice of Hearing to come in to see us. This is a written charge where he was charged with the violations from careless and reckless driving on that. That's to dispel any understanding that he didn't know until Monday the extent of what we were looking at. That was on Friday night. We made it for Monday night because Saturday night was the North American Cup and we knew Jody had a lot to deal with on that night and we weren't going to bother him on that night obviously and we made it for Monday night. He refused to sign the Notice of Hearing and took it with him and destroyed it. If he doesn't have that Notice of Hearing that's his fault for getting rid of that. When Jody did not show up on Monday night he was taken off his drives as Rule 6.07 says in the rule book and a ruling was written on that. Nowhere does Mr. Jamieson show where he is appealing that penalty under Rule 6.07 and 1.09 and that's why there is nothing in the book of documents with regard to that ruling. That is a separate ruling for him not showing. He was indefinitely suspended. He was not suspended for one day. He was suspended until he came in and saw the Judges. When he showed up the next night to review the film with us he was reinstated. Mr. Burgess brought up the fact that the bettors and WEG were put out because Mr. Jamieson was taken off the drives. The management of WEG Mr. Jamie Martin and Bruce Murray told us that they would give us letters of recommendation saying that they backed us up on that decision for him not showing up on the Monday night. Thank you very much.

MS. WALKER: Mr. Burgess?

MR. BURGESS: I just want to clarify the record that is not what I was advised by those gentlemen. However, if there is I did not know there was a ruling made so it will appear now in Jody's thing so there is a ruling on the two - was it 6.07?

MR. MILLER: 6.07 and 1.09.

MR. BURGESS: And you got the one day so therefore that really has nothing to do with the other case and the three days will flow.

MS. WALKER: So for this appeal you will get three days, okay?

MR. BURGESS: Okay.

MS. WALKER: Thank you very much.

CERTIFIED CORRECT:_________________________________

RAYMOND P. MACDONALD, B.A., CVR

Commissioner of Oaths