RULING NUMBER COM SB 049/2013

COMMISSION HEARING TORONTO, ONTARIO – NOVEMBER 21, 2013

NOTICE OF DECISION

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

AND IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF GEORGE PLYLEY

George Plyley (“Plylely”) appealed against Ruling Number SB 45600.

Date of Hearing: November 21, 2013

ORC Panel Member: Commissioner John W. Macdonald

Representative for the Appellant: None

Agent for the Administration: Tom Miller

Plylely failed to appear.

The Panel dismissed his appeal and upheld the Judges’ fine of $200. The matter has been referred to the Deputy Director for follow up.

A transcript with the Panel’s oral Reasons for Decision is attached to this Notice.

DATED at Toronto, Ontario, this 25^th^ day of November 2013.

Steven Lehman

Executive Director

ONTARIO RACING COMMISSION

STANDARDBRED HEARING

IN THE MATTER OF THE RACING COMMISSION ACT, 2000, S.O. C.20 AND THE RULES OF STANDARDBRED RACING:

AND IN THE MATTER OF AN APPEAL AND REQUEST FOR HEARING OF GEORGE PLYLEY:

Held Before:

John Macdonald Commissioner

These are an excerpt of the proceedings in the above mentioned matter held before The Ontario Racing Commission, Re: GEORGE PLYLEY, taken before Toronto Court Reporters, Suite 1410, 65 Queen Street West, Toronto, Ontario, at 10 Carlson Court, Suite 400, Toronto, Ontario, on the 21st day of November, 2013.

Appearances: Tom Miller,

agent for the Ontario Racing Commission Administration

Hearing continued ...

MR. CHAIRMAN: There is a hearing set involving George Plyley under the Ontario Racing Commission Act and as I understand the disclosure material the trainer on September 16th, 2013 he was fined $200.00 in the 4th race. The horse was late going to the test barn. His response in the material was that he had not been notified. I would like to have heard what did happen there but since the gentleman is not here and chose not to come, in addition to referring this to the Administration for follow up since I assume that the appellant George Plyley did file his application and it would appear that everything was in order and I would like to hear and the Executive Director or Deputy Director would like to hear the reason why he didn't show up, wasting everybody's time but as far as the fine it is not a substantial sum but I would deny the appeal and then refer this matter to the Administration for follow up. Unless, Mr. Miller, you have some other comments on this?

MR. MILLER: I have some comments but agree with your decision. Mr. Plyley is scheduled to be here at 9:30. He called at ten to 10:00 and I just talked to him. He apologized for not being here but was unable to get anybody to come represent him and he does not have insurance on his car to get here. My suggestion is calling at ten to 10:00 I am pretty sure he knew yesterday he didn't have insurance on his car or any other day. We do have proof of service from Mr. Plyley. We do agree that the appeal should be heard, go ahead and as you said, denied. We also do agree that this should be referred to the Deputy Director for investigation and probable appearance at the next set of appeals to explain why he wasted the Commission's time and resources by not showing up here today. That's all I have to say. Thank you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

CERTIFIED CORRECT:_______________________________

RAYMOND P. MACDONALD, B.A., CVR

Commissioner of Oaths