RULING NUMBER COM TB 004/2014
COMMISSION HEARING TORONTO, ONTARIO – MAY 28, 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 TIM REGAN
Tim Regan, licence #118152, appealed against Ruling Number TB 8360/2013.
Date of Hearing: May 28, 2014
ORC Panel Member: Commissioner John W. Macdonald
Representative for Appellant: Self represented
Counsel for the Administration: Jennifer Friedman
The Panel denied the appeal.
A transcript with the Panel’s oral Reasons for Decision is attached to this Notice.
DATED at Toronto this 28th day of May 2014.
Steven Lehman
Executive Director
ONTARIO RACING COMMISSION
THOROUGHBRED HEARING
IN THE MATTER OF THE RACING COMMISSION ACT, 2000, S.O. C.20 AND THE RULES OF THOROUGHBRED RACING:
AND IN THE MATTER OF AN APPEAL AND REQUEST FOR HEARING OF TIM REGAN:
Held Before:
John Macdonald Chairman
These are an excerpt of the proceedings in the above mentioned matter held before The Ontario Racing Commission, Re: TIM REGAN, taken before Toronto Court Reporters, Suite 1410, 65 Queen Street West, Toronto, Ontario, at 10 Carlson Court, Suite 400, Toronto, Ontario, on the 28th day of May, 2014.
Appearances:
Jennifer Friedman,
for the Ontario Racing Commission Administration
Hearing continued ...
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you all. I have some difficulty here. Counsel has pointed out that there were no infractions by the horse. The horse didn't do anything wrong and I have to consider the fact that there might be some unfairness in that respect but unfortunately the stewards have the discretion as to the validity of the start so it would be final by the stewards and it's usually when the horses are locked in. The video does show that the horse had head and chest out when the gates opened. I couldn't see whether the starter behind the horse was holding his head but it certainly looked like it was released and it did show the doors opened. The horse didn't take advantage of the early opening. I think that was clear but that's the horse. The opportunity was there. This is the consequence. The consistency has been with the stewards when there is a malfunction of the starting gate, the fact that the horse is declared a non starter and there is a refund. The horse is not on any list for infractions or anything like that. It's awkward but as Chair Seiling suggested, the policy should be reviewed. I looked at the Fehr case and former Chair Seiling indicated that only the right hand gate opened prematurely. Now I didn't see the video of that case but have to rely on his reasons and in the fact part of it when the left gate did not open Chair Seiling said that there would not be room for the horse to get through so that allows me to make the distinction between that case and this one. In other words, I can distinguish the two because the horse could not get through. Here the horse didn't take advantage it would appear but it is still clear that the gate had malfunctioned and counsel quite correctly pointed out consistency is what they are trying to do. It may be that the rules should be revisited but the indications were from the witnesses that the policy has not changed. So to be consistent with the other cases the horse in this case had a refund for all the betting public and was declared a non starter and therefore I am going to disallow the appeal and the case will stand as it until it is dealt with in some other fashion, if that is the choice. Thank you.
CERTIFIED CORRECT:_______________________________
RAYMOND P. MACDONALD, B.A., CVR
Commissioner of Oaths