RULING NUMBER COM TB 003/2015
COMMISSION HEARING TORONTO, ONTARIO – MAY 6, 2015
NOTICE OF DECISION
IN THE MATTER OF THE RACING COMMISSION ACT, S.O. 2000, c.20;
AND IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF PATRICK HUSBANDS
Patrick Husbands, licence # 119669, appealed against Ruling Number TB 9060/2014 for violation of Rules 11.11, 16.13 (d) and 24.04 of the Rules of Thoroughbred Racing.
Date of Hearing: May 6, 2015
ORC Panel: Sandra Meyrick, Commissioner
Representative for the Appellant: Self-represented
Agent for the Administration: David Stewart
Decision:
The Panel denied the appeal in part and varied the penalty. To clarify, the $200.00 penalty is stayed for a six month period. If Mr. Husbands is found in violation of 11.11 again, that $200.00 comes due plus any penalty he is fined at that time.
A transcript with the Panel’s oral Reasons for Decision is attached to this Notice.
DATED at Toronto this 25th day of May 2015.
______________________________
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 PATRICK HUSBANDS:
Held Before:
Sandra Meyrick Commissioner
These are an excerpt of the proceedings in the above mentioned matter held before The Ontario Racing Commission, Re: PATRICK HUSBANDS, taken before Toronto Court Reporters, Suite 1410, 65 Queen Street West, Toronto, Ontario, at 10 Carlson Court, Suite 400, Toronto, Ontario, on the 6th day of May, 2015.
Appearances:
David Stewart,
Agent for the Ontario Racing Commission Administration
Hearing continued ...
MADAME CHAIR: Please be seated. You have given me a bit of a challenge today but Patrick Husbands has appealed TB ruling 9060/2014 wherein he was fined $200.00 consistent with rule 16.13(d) of TB Racing for failing to lodge an objection when fouled during the running of the 6th race on November 2nd, 2014. The appeal is denied to the extent that there is a positive obligation under the rules, particularly rule 11.11, to claim foul where there is interference. This positive obligation is not subjective in nature. It is agreed by all parties that the interference occurred and in fact the offending horse, the number 6 horse which committed the interference, was moved from 2nd place to 3rd place after the race. The appeal is upheld though in terms of the penalty. The $200.00 is stayed provided that Husbands does not face a further similar ruling during the six months. The facts of this appeal are unique and rest in large measure on credibility. Husbands argues that he was not aware of an interference caused by Morin’s horse. To a large measure it is his obligation to be aware of such incidents both for safety reasons and public perception. Neverheless Husbands is believable in his explanation of events and it strikes me that to be penalized for an act or omission one needs to be aware of the incident for which one is taking action or failing to take action. So the appeal is upheld therefore in part. Any comments on the decision? Any terms that you want to consider?
MR. STEWART: So just to clarify, $200.00 penalty is stayed for a six month period. If Mr. Husbands is found in violation of 11.11 again that two hundred comes due plus any penalty he is fined at that time.
MADAME CHAIR: Correct. Yes, I will clarify that. So I have added if such an infraction occurs during that six month period that penalty is due plus any further penalty deemed appropriate by the stewards.
MR. STEWART: And that six months starts right today then?
MADAME CHAIR: Yes.
MR. STEWART: Or next racing day?
MADAME CHAIR: I would suggest today, the date of the hearing. Anything further?
MR. STEWART: No thank you.
CERTIFIED CORRECT:_________________________________
RAYMOND P. MACDONALD, B.A., CVR
Commissioner of Oaths