RULING NUMBER COM SB 013/2011

COMMISSION HEARING TORONTO, ONTARIO – MARCH 10, 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 ISAAC S. WAXMAN

Standardbred Licensee Isaac S. Waxman (“WAXMAN”) has appealed the following:

i. Ruling Number SB 43221, wherein WAXMAN was fined $5,000 and fully suspended for one year (February 28, 2011 to February 27, 2012 inclusive) for violation of 6.17 (c) (d), and 6.20 (b) and (c) of the Rules of Standardbred Racing (“the Rules”), following the 6th race at Kawartha Downs Raceway on February 3, 2011;

ii. Ruling Number SB 43222, wherein in accordance with 6.13.02 and 6.13.03 of the Rules, the following horses were suspended:

Awesome Armbro N ZW215

Flem N Enm Oct46

All Tiger N 2BX84

Strand Hanover 8DL39

Cajon Thunder 7EM46

Dali 2C307

Dr Dew 8FN63

McLaren 3D916; and

iii. Ruling Number SB 43223, wherein in accordance with 5.11 and 1.09 of the Rules all horses owned wholly or in part by WAXMAN on February 4, 2011 and onward, shall continue to have all purse monies held pending the full and complete disposition of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice granted injunction (number 11-25384).

WAXMAN requested a stay of Rulings SB 43221, SB 43222 and SB 43223.

The Deputy Director issued Ruling SB 41/2011, dated March 1, 2011, which denied WAXMAN’S request for a stay of Rulings SB 43221, SB 43222 and SB 43223.

WAXMAN requested an appeal with respect to Ruling SB 41/2011.

On March 10, 2011, a Panel of the ORC consisting of Commissioner John Macdonald as Chair, was convened to deal with the appeal of Ruling SB 41/2011 and the denial of the stay request.

Angela Holland appeared as counsel for the Administration. Helen Pelton appeared as counsel for WAXMAN and WAXMAN attended in person.

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 WAXMAN, the Panel dismissed the appeal and denied the stay.

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

DATED at Toronto, Ontario this 11th day of March 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 ISAAC WAXMAN

Held Before:

John Macdonald, Commissioner

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

Appearances:

Angela Holland,

counsel for the Ontario Racing Commission Administration

Helen Pelton, counsel for Isaac Waxman

Hearing continued ...

MR. CHAIRMAN: All rise. Please be seated. I have read the material, listened to the evidence of Rob McKinney this morning and looked at the cases and other exhibits that were submitted today and the argument of counsel for which I thank you. The Superior Court matter to decide the injunction, timing and the affect of the suspension and whether or not it has any relevance to the purse monies that were earned during the period we talked about, February 4th to February 28th is going to be heard, I gather, the week of March the 21st or at least that is when it is scheduled for.

I indicated my concern earlier about the other owners which are listed in tab 12 of Exhibit number 1 and I am feeling a little bit better about the fact that there will be a decision come out in just a little over two weeks over what happens there. That also reflects on the industry if a trainer is suspended and an owner and it can be a substantial amount who might not have the opportunity to get purse monies earned. This is not a case where there is a drug offence or there is a problem when the horse has a positive test and the owners have to wait. They would lose because of the trainer responsibility. This is a case where the suspension relates to matters that are serious. It's not the same as a positive test where the trainer and horse are suspended and the owner loses.

I'm concerned that the applicant hasn't seemed to have paid any attention to the ruling of the chair on December 22nd where he was placed on probation for two years, was to keep the peace and be of good behaviour and complete an anger management course by June the 11th and have a report by that date.

I'm mindful of the comments made to the Trespass Act provisions at Kawartha Downs but as counsel pointed out that only applies to that one specific facility and not others in the province so it is not expansive in that sense. If there is a hearing before a panel here and the suspension is granted then that is effective everywhere in the province and right now the request is for a stay.

Now I think Mr. McKinney properly considered the items that were relevant, not just to him but they are a public record and he references through his decision to a stay that was covered through his examining the rulings of the Judges and reviewing their decision, the probation ruling and the policy on transfer and spent some time on the past conduct situation. He has the discretion and there is also the public perception. The public must be wondering what is going on in the industry when something happens and is seen by a number of people and commented on and it is further aggravated by comments, that there is no indication of any remorse or regret; although, it is acknowledged through his counsel that the behaviour was not acceptable, stated in those exact words.

The test relating to interim injunctions, was the matter serious; yes, it is. Irreparable; in that case I would disagree with counsel. I don't think it is irreparable in the sense that the court case is going to be heard in two weeks and there is no hearing yet by any panel of the ORC as to the suspension or fine or any other decision that is still open to appeal I understand and a date has yet to be set to hear that appeal. The balance of convenience; again, through the public perception it is very poor but we have comments about that from the public but the concern would have been larger if it had of been one of the other facilities and that's I think the concern that the Commission has and Mr. McKinney had as far as wanting to deny the stay because of the possibility that something like those actions occurring at one of our major facilities, understanding the fact that is well known in the industry it is not all throughout the public or at least we hope it is not. We don't need any bad publicity.

I am going to deny the stay obviously from what I have just said and I'm very mindful that the court hearing in two weeks will be making a decision and with respect to the court proceeding we have to defer and show proper deference to them as far as what decision they make and decide what this Commission does after that. That's a decision for the Administration. Any questions?

MS. HOLLAND: No, sir.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. The hearing is terminated.

CERTIFIED CORRECT__________________________________

RAYMOND P. MACDONALD, B.A., CVR

Commissioner of Oaths