RULING NUMBER COM SB 052/2011

COMMISSION HEARING TORONTO, ONTARIO – OCTOBER 24, 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

HOWARD TAYLOR

Howard Taylor (“Taylor”) appealed against Standardbred Official Ruling SB 42711, dated October 18, 2011, wherein the horse, Buck I St. Pat, was rendered ineligible to be declared to and race in an overnight or added money event for having made a break in two consecutive races, pursuant to Rule 12.10.01 of the Rules of Standardbred Racing.

On October 18, 2011, Taylor requested that an electronic Hearing be scheduled given the time-sensitive nature of the appeal.

On October 20, 2011, a Panel of the Ontario Racing Commission consisting of Chair Rod Seiling was convened to hear this matter via teleconference.

Taylor acted as counsel on behalf of the horse, Buck I St. Pat. Jennifer Friedman appeared as counsel for the Administration.

Upon hearing the testimony of ORC Judge Dave Stewart, Cindy Aziz, Scott McKelvie, Ronald Burke, and Jamie Rucker, and upon hearing the submissions of counsel, the Panel denied the appeal and awarded $1,200 in costs to the ORC for a frivolous appeal.

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

DATED at Toronto this 24th day of October 2011.

BY ORDER OF THE COMMISSION __________________________________

John L. Blakney Executive Director ONTARIO RACING COMMISSION

THOROUGHBRED HEARING

IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL AND REQUEST FOR HEARING OF HOWARD TAYLOR

Held Before:

Rod Seiling, Chairman

These are an excerpt of the proceedings in the above mentioned matter held before The Ontario Racing Commission, Re: HOWARD TAYLOR, taken before Toronto Court Reporters, Suite 1410, 65 Queen Street West, Toronto, Ontario, at 10 Carlson Court, Suite 400, Toronto, Ontario, on the 20th day of October, 2011.

Appearances:

Jennifer Friedman, for the Ontario Racing Commission Administration

Harold Taylor, for licensee Taylor

Hearing continued ...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, is everybody on?

MR. TAYLOR: Yes.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. The appeal is denied. The onus is on the appellant to know the rules. Ignorance, as per Standardbred Rule 1.09, is not an acceptable defence. It is reasonable to conclude that Ms. Aziz, an experienced race office official, had she known of the second break would know about rule 12.10.01 and would have told Mr. Burke of the need to qualify the horse. In terms of the precedent cases I'm persuaded that as in Exhibit 2 and I quote, the defence, as well established in American law, in cases where government officials are relied upon it has to be clear and certainly it isn't clear from the appellant's perspective, the conflicting testimony of their own witnesses, as to what transpired on the phone call to Ms. Aziz and I accept Ms. Friedman's request and I award $1,200.00 in costs to the ORC for a frivolous appeal. Thank you very much.

MR. TAYLOR: Excuse me, sir, you find it frivolous?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I do.

MR. TAYLOR: So am I to understand that every time you lose an argument it is deemed frivolous or do feel that this was of no merit whatsoever?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think the appeal stands as it is, sir - the decision.

MR. TAYLOR: Well, if you assessing me $1,200.00 I think I have the right to know why.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I just said, it is a frivolous appeal. I accept it. Ms. Friedman asked for that. You did not even respond.

MR. TAYLOR: I'm sorry, what? I wasn't given the opportunity to respond and had she asked for that at the time because that request was made as part of a rebuttal and it was not part of anything that I said for rebuttal. It wasn't something that should have been allowed in rebuttal.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The ruling stands as it is, sir.

MR. TAYLOR: Well, where do I take an appeal from that ruling?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Ms. Friedman can explain it to you.

MR. TAYLOR: I'm sorry?

MS. FRIEDMAN: You can make a Judicial Review to the Divisional Court.

MR. TAYLOR: The fine I'm talking about.

MS. FRIEDMAN: The Divisional Court. Any aspect of the decision can be appealed to the Divisional Court.

MR. TAYLOR: Okay, I will do that then.

MS. FRIEDMAN: Thank you.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

CERTIFIED CORRECT ________________________________

RAYMOND P. MACDONALD, B.A., CVR Commissioner of Oaths