Ontario Racing Commission
Notice of Decision
RULING NUMBER COM TB 019/2015
COMMISSION HEARING TORONTO, ONTARIO – OCTOBER 14, 2015
IN THE MATTER OF THE RACING COMMISSION ACT, S.O. 2000, c.20;
AND IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEALS AND REQUEST FOR HEARING OF JOHN BRJNAS AND ERIKA SMILOVSKY
John Brjnas and Erika Smilovsky (“Smilovsky”) appealed against Ruling Number TB 9383/2015 issued against Smilovsky wherein she was suspended for three racing days and her horse, OMNIVELLY, finished 2nd and was placed 3rd in the 2nd race at Woodbine Racetrack on August 15, 2015.
Date of Hearing: October 14, 2015
ORC Panel: John W. Macdonald, Commissioner
Representative for the Appellants: Self represented
Counsel for the Administration: David Stewart
Decision:
The Panel denied the appeals.
A transcript with the Panel’s oral Reasons for Decision is attached to this Notice.
DATED at Toronto this 22nd day of October 2015.
Jean Major
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 JOHN BRJNAS and ERIKA SMILOVSKY:
Held Before:
John Macdonald Commissioner
These are an excerpt of the proceedings in the above mentioned matter held before The Ontario Racing Commission, Re: JOHN BRJNAS and ERIKA SMILOVSKY, taken before Toronto Court Reporters, Suite 1410, 65 Queen Street West, Toronto, Ontario, at 10 Carlson Court, Suite 400, Toronto, Ontario, on the 14th day of October, 2015.
Appearances:
David Stewart,
Agent for the Ontario Racing Commission Administration
Hearing continued ...
MR. CHAIRMAN: It is close quarters but the fact that Michele Ranford decided at one stage in the race that you are going to move out and then she saw enough of a hole opening up on the rail that she started to move in there and the difficulty is Ms. Smilovsky was drifting in by about a half a length and part of that was possibly the urging with her right hand pushing her horse farther towards the rail. The results of which while it is difficult in close quarters it did mean that the horse ridden by Michele Ranford did lose some momentum. Maybe she took a hold a little too much but this is all hindsight and it is a safety factor. As a results of which there was interference. While it wasn’t contact of any great consequences there was a cutting off of the position. There may be other cases; Mr. Brjnas has said, where the case has been overlooked but we are looking at one specific case and that’s here. Now I’ve watched the videos as you have. We have a slightly different interpretation from what you think, Mr. Brjnas and what I see and what the stewards see. The summation is that I am going to deny the appeals because of the fact that the horse OMNIVELLY moving towards the rail and cutting off the direct path. Even if it was only a half length that was enough to make the difference and it changed the momentum of the 2 horse NATURAL BLOND. Thank you. The appeal is denied.
CERTIFIED CORRECT:_________________________________
RAYMOND P. MACDONALD, B.A., CVR
Commissioner of Oaths