RULING NUMBER COM TB 011/2014
COMMISSION HEARING TORONTO, ONTARIO – AUGUST 20, 2014
NOTICE OF DECISION
IN THE MATTER OF THE RACING COMMISSION ACT, S.O. 2000, c.20;
AND IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEALS OF RAVENDRA RAGHUNATH AND LATCHMIN (SHEILA) MOHAN
Ravendra Raghunath, licence # 114652 and Latchmin (Sheila) Mohan, licence # 114602, appealed against Rulings Number TB ADMIN 50/2014 and TB ADMIN 51/2014 respectively, issued on August 12, 2014, for violation of Rule 4.01.05.2 of the Rules of Thoroughbred Racing.
Date of Hearing: August 20, 2014
ORC Panel: Commissioner John W. Macdonald
Counsel for the Appellant: Self-represented
Counsel for the Administration: Brendan Van Niejenhuis
The Panel adjourned the appeal sine die with conditions as follows:
Thoroughbred Rulings TB ADMIN 50/2014 and TB ADMIN 51/2014 are hereby stayed until August 31, 2014.
Should the appellants provide evidence satisfactory to the Deputy Director that they have paid the sum of $3,330 to Lincoln Veterinary Services on or before August 31, 2014, then the stay shall continue until September 22, 2014.
Should the appellants provide evidence satisfactory to the Deputy Director that they have paid the further sum of $3,330 to Lincoln Veterinary Services on or before September 22, 2014, then the stay shall continue until September 25, 2014.
Should the appellants provide evidence satisfactory to the Deputy Director that they have no outstanding financial obligation to Lincoln Veterinary Services on or before September 25, 2014, then Rulings TB ADMIN 50/2014 and TB ADMIN 51/2014 shall be set aside.
A transcript with the Panel’s oral Reasons for Decision is attached to this Notice.
DATED at Toronto this 21^st^ day of August 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 RAVENDRA RAGHUNATH and LATCHMIN (SHEILA) MOHAN:
Held Before:
John Macdonald Chairman
These are an excerpt of the proceedings in the above mentioned matter held before The Ontario Racing Commission, Re: RAVENDRA RAGHUNATH and LATCHMIN (SHEILA) MOHAN, taken before Toronto Court Reporters, Suite 1410, 65 Queen Street West, Toronto, Ontario, at 10 Carlson Court, Suite 400, Toronto, Ontario, on the 20th day of August, 2014.
Appearances:
Brendan Van Niejenhuis,
for the Ontario Racing Commission Administration
Hearing continued ...
MR. CHAIRMAN: We are looking for Solomon.
MR. VAN NIEJENHUIS: Well, I thought you were Solomon. I have a joint submission or what effectively is a joint submission, Mr. Chair, as to what you should order today. Given your comments and what we have heard from the evidence what both the Administration and the appellants propose to you is that you grant a stay of the Deputy Director's two rulings 50 and 51 and that that stay be on the following terms, that the stay be in force until August the 31st of 2014. You might want to actually turn up because this will help you understand what we are submitting here, turn up the tab 6.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The next payment date.
MR. VAN NIEJENHUIS: Yes and if the appellants make payment and confirm to the Deputy Director that payment has been made of $3.330.00 on or before August 31st that the stay then should continue automatically until September the 22nd and that if the amount of $3.330.00 is paid by September the 22nd and that is shown to the satisfaction of the Deputy Director and furthermore if the appellants will then provide a letter to the Deputy Director from Ms. Warwick by September the 25th confirming that Lincoln regards the debt as extinguished or paid in full then your ruling today should indicate that that thoroughbred rulings 50 and 51 of 2014 are set aside. What this order does that we jointly recommend, Commissioner, is effectively enforce the payment plan that has been, as we understand on the evidence, agreed to ensuring that evidence of those continuing payments is made to the satisfaction of the Deputy Director and importantly that the Deputy Director be able to have some comfort at the end that the debt is now zero so far as Lincoln is concerned and that's the order we would ask you for today. With respect to the Adams claim, as I think I said at the outset, this is in the pile, this is before you. It is not something on which any relief has been granted or something on which any order has been made against the appellants for. That issue may arise again and it will have to be dealt with separately and the appellants I believe understand that if and when a proper judgment is issued in that case that would be dealt with independently. I don't know if you have any questions about that resolution and of course in terms of drafting the ruling that is something that counsel or I am prepared to do.
MR. CHAIRMAN: To be clear, it would appear that there has been a breach of the responsibility rules as far as financial items are concerned but I would adopt the proposal that was made and for the purposes of the record on tab 6 of Exhibit 1 the payment terms for August 31 and September 22nd are set out there. That's $3,330.00 on each date and I adopt the proposal that there will be a stay provided that those two payments are made, some evidence is given that that has happened and three days following the September 22nd payment, if it is made, the appellants will be required to obtain from Warwick Accounting Services on behalf the client they represent Lincoln Veterinary Services that the claim is then considered as having been satisfied in full. That doesn't mean that they have to go to the stage of a satisfaction piece but obviously that's an item that you can consider with them and they may do that but as far as the Racing Commission is concerned if we receive something from the appellants indicating that Lincoln Veterinary Services are satisfied that will be sufficient for our purposes. Therefore the stay of Rulings 50 and 51 of 2014 will go on those terms.
MR. VAN NIEJENHUIS: Thank you. I think technically there would be an issue about the appeal. I suggest that we simply treat the appeal itself as adjourned sine die in there is likely to be more clarity about whether anything ever needs to happen with that procedurally after September 22nd has passed.
MR. CHAIRMAN: It's a little awkward for setting any time for that but sine die makes sense. Thank you, counsel. So this matter is adjourned or this appeal is adjourned sine die which means without a specific date.
CERTIFIED CORRECT:_________________________________
RAYMOND P. MACDONALD, B.A., CVR Commissioner of Oaths