Pasquale Parente v. Ontario Racing Commission Administration, 2016 CanLII 15944

COMMISSION HEARING TORONTO, ONTARIO – MARCH 17, 2016

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

AND IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL AND REQUEST FOR HEARING BY

PASQUALE PARENTE

Date of Hearing: March 17, 2016

ORC Panel: Elmer Buchanan, Chair Anthony Williams, Vice Chair

Counsel for the Appellant: Dan McMahon

Counsel for the Administration: Carlo di Carlo

Decision: (i) The Hearing is scheduled to continue on the 13^th of April, 2016, at 9:00 a.m.

and

on the 15^th of April 2016 at 9:00 a.m.

(ii) The stays of the penalty will continue until the 16^th of April, 2016;

(iii) The Hearing is marked peremptory upon the Appellant.

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

DATED at Toronto this 29^th day of March 2016.

Jean Major

Executive Director

ONTARIO RACING COMMISSION

THOROUGHBRED HEARING

IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL AND REQUEST FOR HEARING OF PASQUALE PARENTE:

Held Before:

Anthony Williams, Vice Chair

Elmer Buchanan, Chair (ORC)

These are an excerpt of the proceedings in the above mentioned matter held before The Ontario Racing Commission, Re: PASQUALE PARENTE, taken before Toronto Court Reporters, Suite 1410, 65 Queen Street West, Toronto, Ontario, at 10 Carlson Court, Suite 400, Toronto, Ontario, on the 16th day of March, 2016.

Appearances:

Carlo Di Carlo for the Ontario Racing Commission Administration

Dan McMahon for appellant Parente

Hearing continued ...

MR. CHAIRMAN: … We are troubled by the timing. There are a limited number of options available to us. We have come to the conclusion that we are going to extend the stay of the penalty imposed upon Mr. Parente. That’s the two pronged penalty of the six. I realize there are six other mandatory components of a positive test that he has already suffered beyond the loss of face and income. He has invested I believe 24 days in relation to suspension so far. He has a $5,000 fine outstanding at the moment from the judges’ or stewards’ order and he has the remnant of 365 days minus 24 days. If we are to follow the approach taken by the Divisional Court and the Ontario Racing Commission in the Brad Shakes case Mr. Parente, if he is successful on a due diligence defence, is at least entitled to no suspension and a fine in a non oppressive amount and we are not prepared to change that stay. There were legitimate reasons and again we have tracked through the substantial time that unfortunately was required for the Cappuccitti and Wilson decision to be delivered and we are not seeking to ascribe fault to any of the participants. We are not going to make a ruling in relation to the disclosure request at this time. We are going to continue the stay until at least Saturday the 16^th day of April. Our next two anticipated days are Wednesday April 13, 2016 and Friday April 15, 2016. Would counsel be agreeable to starting up at 9:00 in the morning on those days?

MR. MCMAHON: I’m agreeable.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Does that do damage to the position of the Administration?

MR. DI CARLO: No.

MR. CHAIRMAN: And is that available for Dr. Adam Chambers as a witness April 13^th at 9:00?

DR. CHAMBERS: I don’t know but I can check.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Do you have any of those devices or a calendar with you right now so we don’t land you on a day that is going to be automatically a disaster zone?

DR. CHAMBERS: 13^th and?

MR. CHAIRMAN: 13^th AND 15^th.

DR. CHAMBERS: Yes.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Anything further, counsel?

MR. DI CARLO: Not for the Administration. Thank you very much.

MR. MCMAHON: The only one thing I would say is I will speak with Ms. Wright tomorrow with a view of hopefully confirming that Mr. Grant will be back by the 13^th. I assume she will be able to determine that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: And your other witnesses Daniel Vello and Dr. Colangelo?

MR. MCMAHON: They will be back. I have no anticipated problems with those two.

MR. DI CARLO: If we are going to confirm the 13^th and 15^th I would ask that they be marked peremptory on the defendant Parente or rather the appellant.

MR. MCMAHON: I’m not adverse to that but when we couldn’t get the thing done on today’s date it is not like it is going over because we have been unwilling to proceed. It is really a matter there has not been time to have it heard but I am going to make my best efforts to do everything I possibly can with a view of bringing this matter to a conclusion by the 13^th or the 15^th. I have even offered to discuss the matter with my friend but I don’t know if that would be overly productive based on the discussions he had had with Mr. Parente.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, hopefully the channels of communication will remain open and that I am going to seek the guidance of a very wise gentleman who is very close by. Your panel of two is of the view that since the matter is going to be adjourned for one month less four days, in view of all of the circumstances and I won’t put you to sleep with a recitation of the history; I am sure to the relief of all, it does appear to be an appropriate case that we would endorse the record peremptory to proceed upon the appellant. We realize there are other circumstances that might unfold that will not make that necessarily and absolute but that’s the present approach. Any further, gentlemen?

MR. DI CARLO: Nothing further.

CERTIFIED CORRECT ________________________________

RAYMOND P. MACDONALD, B.A., CVR

Commissioner of Oaths