RULING NUMBER COM SB 017/2015

COMMISSION HEARING TORONTO, ONTARIO – JULY 8, 2015

NOTICE OF DECISION

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

AND IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL AND REQUEST FOR HEARING OF ISABELLE DARVEAU

Isabelle Darveau, licence # Y19342, appealed against Ruling Number SB 45083 wherein she was charged for violation of Rule 17.17 of the Rules of Standardbred Racing.

Date of Hearing: July 8, 2015

ORC Panel: John W. Macdonald, Commissioner

Representative for the Appellant: Self represented

Agent for the Administration: Neil McCoag

Decision:

The Panel denied the appeal and upheld the ruling of the Judges..

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

DATED at Toronto this 14^th day of July 2015.

Jean Major

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 ISABELLE DARVEAU:

Held Before:

John Macdonald Commissioner

These are an excerpt of the proceedings in the above mentioned matter held before The Ontario Racing Commission, Re: ISABELLE DARVEAU, taken before Toronto Court Reporters, Suite 1410, 65 Queen Street West, Toronto, Ontario, at 10 Carlson Court, Suite 400, Toronto, Ontario, on the 8th day of July, 2015.

Appearances:

Neil McCoag,

Agent for the Ontario Racing Commission Administration

Hearing continued ...

MR. CHAIRMAN: After listening to the evidence that was presented; unfortunately we don’t have Mr. Fleming here but we do have notes. It’s true the horse was entered. There was some confusion as to whether the appellant got the class that she wanted but the race secretary does have the authority to classify horses that are entered there and that’s apparently what he did. I have some concerns because of the handicapping and it would appear to me, as I indicated earlier, that part of the handicapping that the race secretary did, and maybe for good reason, was based on the horse’s earnings and abilities that were shown in the previous year. From handicapping, and I can’t say that I’m very good at it but I see two or three horses here that might have also fit the handicapped category and counsel was not sure whether that was the case or whether they were assigned those positions.

In any event I have a further concern, the public interest which is part of my job, that you have a horse that is programmed, had been entered, had been classified, obviously would have been competitive in this class and the scratching was not appropriate at this time regardless of whether there was another racing opportunity somewhere else which in this case was Mohawk. So I am going to deny the appeal and keep the fine the same but in the circumstances there is some questions and we don’t have Mr. Fleming here to answer in cross-examination or to verify his statement so I don’t feel that I should add any further costs for frivolous, although, it is not an unusual thing for me to do; I should add which I have done in the past. Thank you.

MR. MCCOAG: Thank you, sir.

CERTIFIED CORRECT:_________________________________

RAYMOND P. MACDONALD, B.A., CVR

Commissioner of Oaths