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

STANDARDBRED LICENSEE GREGORY LIEZERT

Standardbred Licensee Gregory Liezert (“LIEZERT”) appealed Ruling SB 41865, dated December 30, 2010, wherein he was suspended for 2 years (January 31, 2011 to January 30, 2013), followed by 2 years probation (January 31, 2013 to January 30, 2015) for committing an act of cruelty to the horse “Brittle Truth” in violation of 6.22 of the Rules of Standardbred Racing.

A stay of the penalty was granted by the Deputy Director on January 31, 2011, pursuant to Ruling SB 24/2011, pending the hearing of the appeal, with the following conditions:

Keep the peace and be of good behaviour;
Not to attend the grounds of Rideau Carleton Raceway without permission of the Ontario Racing Commission Judges;
No communication directly or indirectly with Dr. Linda Berthiaume-Atack;
Attend the hearing on March 16, 2011.

LIEZERT requested an appeal with respect to the second condition of Ruling SB 24/2011.

On February 15, 2011, a Panel of the ORC consisting of Commissioner John Macdonald, was convened to deal with the appeal of the stay conditions.

Angela Holland appeared as counsel for the Administration. Gerry White appeared as counsel for LIEZERT.

Upon hearing the testimony of Rob McKinney, upon reviewing the exhibits filed, and upon hearing the submissions of counsel for the Administration and counsel for LIEZERT, the Panel dismissed the appeal.

The transcript with the Panel’s Oral Decision is attached to this Ruling.

DATED at Toronto this 17^th^ day of February, 2011.

BY ORDER OF THE COMMISSION

John L. Blakney

Executive Director

ONTARIO RACING COMMISSION

RE: STANDARDBRED HEARING

IN THE MATTER OF AN APPEAL AND REQUEST FOR HEARING OF GREGORY LIEZERT

Held Before:

John Macdonald, Commissioner

This is an excerpt of a Hearing of the Ontario Racing Commission re: GREGORY LIEZERT taken before Toronto Court Reporters, Suite 1410, 65 Queen Street West, Toronto, Ontario, at 10 Carlson Court, Suite 400, Toronto, Ontario, on the 15th day of February, 2011.

Appearances:

Angela Holland,

Counsel for the Ontario Racing Commission Administration

Gerald White Counsel for Gregory Liezert

Hearing continued ...

MR. CHAIRMAN: All rise. Please be seated. I have had a few minutes to think about this. The Administration obviously has expressed a concern here involving the protection of other licensees. They have a responsibility to others as well as they have to your client, Mr. White. It is what's in the best interest of racing. The conditions imposed on the stay had the provision not to attend the grounds of Rideau Carleton Raceway without the permission of the Ontario Racing Commission Judges. That passed the obligation over to the Judges and as Mr. McKinney indicated, the Judges, notwithstanding they are not there on a regular basis, they are available and the applicant could ask for certain days, certain times on those days for a specific purpose and a specific time to do certain things, whether that is training, just jogging, shoeing which I gather he does and he can race. Now they can put conditions on that. On the other side of it the Deputy Director was not aware of any trespass notice that had been given by Rideau Carleton so obviously they don't seem to have a concern from their perspective or they are aware of it and they are awaiting the Commission to make a decision. There is a hearing on March 15th so it is not a long way away. I have to give the Judges the benefit of the doubt, notwithstanding your feelings, Mr. White, that there might be a suggestion of bias because they have already suspended the applicant because I feel that until there is an actual refusal by any of the Judges to allow Mr. Liezert to attend the grounds to carry out his business there. Now that doesn't mean he has to drop everybody off at the gate. He can hire someone else or the groom can go in or the trainer doing the work. Now if he has to go and he advises the Judges and if they turn him down and it is not reasonable then I'm suggesting that it would be the proper thing to have an appeal and we can respond fairly quickly here. I will check but there are some hearings next Wednesday. Yes, standardbred hearings and having another one is not a major thing if there is a refusal. So the way I see this is it looks like it may be a little premature in your case, Mr. White, although you had some indication from the Judges that they weren't obviously very pleased with the activities of your client but there has been no actual refusal or you haven't demonstrated that he applied for a specific time or specific purpose and he had been turned down. If the Judges act unreasonably for a request like that where it is not going to interfere with anyone else on the grounds then that can be dealt with by another panel here or even myself if I'm available. So I am going to deny your motion with the right to appeal further if there is a refusal. Thank you. Any questions?

MS. HOLLAND: No, sir.

MR. WHITE: So am I to understand that if there is a refusal, if he asks to go on the grounds and he is refused, his remedy is to come back on another appeal?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm sorry but that's the only way I can see for that, yes and that would force you to provide reason why it is unreasonable and if it is unreasonable then he should be permitted. I can see cases where they may say no, that's going to cause a further problem but if he is coming in there to shoe some horse, and I don't know the layout of Rideau Carleton as to whether there is a separate building. I assume there is for blacksmithing purposes or if he has to go to somebody's barn to shoe some horses that to me would not necessarily be an unreasonable request but if he is there for a specific purpose and for a specific amount of time and a denial of that would be considered to be because that is part of his income earning ability. Anything else?

MR. WHITE: Well, is driving, catch driving, horses, would that be? Like if he was refused the ability to go on the grounds to catch drive would that be one?

MR. CHAIRMAN: That could be but I can't prejudge that.

MR. WHITE: No.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Part of that is going to depend on who else is there and what time. The concern is the conflict and if there is no conflict between your client and any of the other people that he would come into contact with at that time then presumably it would be all right to allow him to participate.

MR. WHITE: I'm not familiar with the process of the Commission, sir. Is there any way that a teleconference appeal could be conducted?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes.

MR. WHITE: Because the economics.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I quite understand. A teleconference particularly there is an appeal that the Judges acted capriciously or unreasonable in the circumstances but I'm going to give the benefit of the doubt to the Judges. They are members of the Commission. They are licensed and they all have experience and obviously they have an overriding concern for what's in the best interest of the industry and the horsemen and everyone else involved.

MR. WHITE: So if he applies, is refused then we can do an appeal either with yourself or a Commission panel by way of teleconference?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes.

MR. WHITE: Thank you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

CERTIFIED CORRECT:____________________________

RAYMOND P. MACDONALD, B.A., CVR

Commissioner of Oaths

Gregory Liezert (Re), 2011 CanLII 98234

Case Summary

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