RULING NUMBER COM SB 005/2014

COMMISSION HEARING TORONTO, ONTARIO – MARCH 19, 2014

NOTICE OF DECISION

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

AND IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF LORNE HOUSE

Lorne House, Licence # W50903, appealed against Ruling Number SB 42784.

Date of Hearing: March 19, 2014

ORC Panel Members: Anthony Williams, Vice Chair

Representative for the Appellant: Brian Tropea, General Manager

Ontario Harness Horse Association

Representative for the Administration: Dave Stewart, Agent

The Panel denied the appeal.

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

DATED at Toronto this 27th day of March 2014.

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 LORNE HOUSE:

Held Before:

Anthony Williams Vice Chairman

These are an excerpt of the proceedings in the above mentioned matter held before The Ontario Racing Commission, Re: LORNE HOUSE, taken before Toronto Court Reporters, Suite 1410, 65 Queen Street West, Toronto, Ontario, at 10 Carlson Court, Suite 400, Toronto, Ontario, on the 19th day of March, 2014.

Appearances:

Dave Stewart,

agent for the Ontario Racing Commission Administration

Brian Tropea, agent for the General Manager appellant

Ontario Harness Horse

Association

Hearing continued ...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Please be seated. This is an appeal by a gentleman by the name of Lorne House in relation to a disallowance of a claim at the half in relation to standardbred race on Monday, February 3rd of the year 2014 at Western Fair Raceway in London, Ontario a one mile pace, race number 9. The rule that Mr. House bases his application on has many parts. It is rule 22.05.01 of the Rules of Standardbred Racing for the Province of Ontario. It is a mandatory rule. There are four acts that are prohibited if those acts result in any of four potential consequences, one or more. The section reads a driver shall not commit any of the following acts which are considered violations of driving rules. Part (a), change course or position or swerve in or out or bear in or out during any part of the race in such a manner as to compel a horse to shorten its stride or cause another driver to change course, take his or her horse back or pull his or her horse out of its stride. The notice of appeal of Mr. House indicates that Alfie Carroll, who was driving horse number 1 THAT'S THE LIFE, forced his way out and caused me, referring to Mr. House, to jerk sideways and take a hold of my horse. The horse being driven by Mr. House was horse number 3, KENDAL GUSTAV. THAT'S THE LIFE driven by Carroll ended up in 1st place. Lorne House driving KENDAL GUSTAV ended up in 2nd place. This appeal presents certain special challenges. This hearing is a trial de novo or new trial. It would appear that the burden of proof must be satisfied on the balance of probabilities that it was more likely than not that Mr. Carroll driving THAT'S THE LIFE forced his way out and caused Lorne House in essence to take evasive action. The evidence must be clear, cogent and compelling and we have had the opportunity aided by witnesses with considerable experience to see the upper pan, the lower pan, the front tower and the back tower views of the race and their perceived interpretations. The core position advanced by the Administration is that Alfie Carroll had maintained his position at the half and that Alfie Carroll was on the 2 horse path on the entire turn. Of the three horses on the turn CLIC K L, horse number 6, driven by Tony Kerwood was in the lead. Horse number 1, THAT'S THE LIFE was in 2nd place and horse number 3, KENDAL GUSTAV was in 3rd place at the half. I had the opportunity to review the tapes of the race which are kindly provided usually well in advance of the hearing and watched the tape or tapes many times. I learned much more today courtesy of Mr. McCoag with the guidance of Messrs. Stewart and Tropea about the various horses and the positions and what was unfolding. This is a learning experience for me each hearing and I have no doubt that Mr. House the appellant is an honourable gentleman who has filed his appeal in good faith and has provided credible evidence from his perspective as to what unfolded. I struggle at the same time with the interpretation provided by Mr. McCoag as one of the three judges who made the ruling and I can say that this is a call that I regard as close. Mr. House, you are not what one would describe; in fact you are at the opposite end of the spectrum, as a vexatious litigant. That's a phrase that has become popular in recent years in the United States of America and in Canada for folks who drive court systems stark raving mad with appeals that are endless and generally without merit. You have a legitimate application which you have pursued in good faith but I am not convinced to the degree I must be on a balance of probabilities that the disallowance of your appeal was in error. So I must refuse your appeal. The disposition is confirmed. Thank you.

CERTIFIED CORRECT:______________________________

RAYMOND P. MACDONALD, B.A., CVR

Commissioner of Oaths