Scott Wray v. Ontario Racing Commission, 2014 CanLII 14131

COMMISSION HEARING TORONTO, ONTARIO – MARCH 19, 2014

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

AND IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF SCOTT WRAY

Scott Wray appealed against Ruling Number SB 42783.

Date of Hearing: March 19, 2014

ORC Panel Members: Anthony Williams, Vice Chair Sandra Meyrick, Commissioner

Representative for the Appellant: Brian Tropea, General Manager Ontario Harness Horse Association

Representative for the Administration: Neil McCoag

The Panel denied the appeal but varied the penalty.

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 SCOTT WRAY:

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: SCOTT WRAY, 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: Neil McCoag, agent for the Ontario Racing Commission Administration Brian Tropea, agent for the Appellant, General Manager, Ontario Harness Horse Association

Hearing continued ...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Please be seated. First, thank you all for your patience as this is a matter that was originally set to proceed at 1:30 and then shifted to 1:45 and we are at 5:35 now. Thank you for your presentations. This is an appeal by a gentleman by the name of Scott Wray, driver, against judges ruling from 10, February, 2014 number SB 42783 which suspended the gentleman from driving for three days for a violation of Rule 22.05.01(a) of the Rules of Standardbred Racing. The race as we know was Friday, February 7th. This gentleman was driving one of the horses involved in some controversial activity. The rule itself under Chapter 22 indicates a driver shall not commit any of the following acts. Four are enumerated. In essence, not to bear out during any part of the race in such a manner as to compel another horse to either shorten its stride, cause another driver to change course, take his or her horse back or pull his or her horse out of its stride. Rule 22.09 also applies here in the case of interference with the violation of any rules the offending horse may be placed back. If a horse is set back it must be placed behind the horse with which it interfered and in this particular case the horse driven by Scott Wray, OLD FRIENDS KENTUCKY, finished 2nd and was placed 5th. The horse with which it interfered is the horse called BANDY COOT number 4 driven by Bruce Richardson which finished 5th and was placed 4th. The appellant in his notice of appeal states I was forced out by the horse inside of me and instead of being hit I moved accordingly. We have had the opportunity to hear from three witnesses, David Stewart judge, Lorne House driver and Scott Wray driver. We have had the opportunity as well to see the upper pan and the front tower on several occasions in full colour. The position of the track judges was set out by witness David Stewart and in essence the position of the judges is at the time that Wray moved out and would appear to have interfered with Richardson pursuant to Rule 22.05.01(a) he was not being forced to the outside by House but it would appear from a careful observation of the film that almost immediately after Wray moved to the outside House moved to the outside. I was impressed by the evidence of all of the witnesses and I was impressed by the evidence of the gentleman who is the person who suffered the punishment in this case. This is a trial de novo or new trial and the burden of proof is upon the Administration. Following a review of all of the evidence I do come to the position that the Administration has met the standard of proof placed upon it in relation to balance of probabilities, that it is more likely than not that Wray interfered with Richardson, horse 7 interfered with 4, OLD FRIENDS KENTUCKY interfered with BANDY COOT and that at the time of that interference MOCKNESS number 3 driven by Lorne House had not forced the appellant to the outside. However, it did appear to happen immediately after from our multiple viewings. I respect the position advanced by Mr. Wray, particularly as it surrounded the previous accident and his attempt to avoid difficulty either injury to himself or others or horses or damage to property and he has already suffered a penalty which had been canvassed in discussion earlier, that being at least although not suspended for the day lost three rides, three horses that were perhaps more successful. Two of the three were more successful than the two that he actually drove. So this is a long winded dissertation and round about way of saying that I am going to seek to affirm the finding of the track judges and the sanction that was imposed but in view of the motivation of Mr. Wray, his openness and what has already happened as a consequence of the finding I am going to stay the three day suspension that was imposed in that I'm of the view that he has already suffered a sanction because of that and this is not an interference that was mean spirited. At the time he moved it would appear and I accept the evidence of our judge there was a gap between the wheels and that it was not shrinking at that moment but these are difficult calls and that's the decision.

MR. TROPEA: Thank you, sir.

CERTIFIED CORRECT:_______________________________

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