Ontario Racing Commission v. Ontario Racing Commission et al., (2016) 350 O.A.C. 1 (DC)

• Judge: Dambrot, Stewart and Thorburn, JJ.
• Court: Superior Court of Justice of Ontario (Canada)
• Case Date: April 28, 2016
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: (2016), 350 O.A.C. 1 (DC);2016 ONSC 2490

Racing Comm. v. Racing Comm. (2016), 350 O.A.C. 1 (DC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2016] O.A.C. TBEd. MY.007

Director, Ontario Racing Commission (applicant) v. Ontario Racing Commission, Jeff Durham, Ron MacLean, Justin Robson and Ed Hayter (respondents)

(425/15; 2016 ONSC 2490)

Indexed As: Ontario Racing Commission v. Ontario Racing Commission et al.

Court of Ontario

Superior Court of Justice

Divisional Court

Dambrot, Stewart and Thorburn, JJ.

May 11, 2016.

Summary:

Durham, MacLean, Robson and Hayter were each trainers licenced by the Ontario Racing Commission. Each of them was responsible for a Standardbred horse that tested positive for isoxsuprine after a race. Isoxsuprine was a vasodilator used for foot problems in horses. It was designated a Class IV controlled substance by the Association of Racing Commissioners International Inc. Its use was not prohibited, but the drug could not be present in a horse's system during a race. Each of the four trainers was found guilty of offences contrary to the Standardbred Racing Rules and penalties were imposed on them by Designated Racing Judges in accordance with the Ontario Racing Commission Guidelines. In addition to the mandatory disqualification of the horses in question and the redistribution of the purses, Durham was fined $1,000 and given a 15 day suspension; MacLean was fined $1,000 and given a 15 day suspension; Robson was fined $2,000 and given a 30 day suspension, and Hayter was fined $1,000 and given a 15 day suspension. The trainers appealed.

The Ontario Racing Commission (Panel) found that each trainer had exercised due diligence, and reduced the penalties for each of the trainers to a fine of $100 and no suspension. The Director of the Ontario Racing Commission applied for judicial review.

The Ontario Divisional Court dismissed the application. The court held that this was an absolute liability offence which deprived the trainers of the defence of due diligence. However, it was open to the Panel to impose a penalty that was lower than suggested in the Ontario Racing Commission Guidelines.

Gaming and Betting - Topic 626

Horse racing - Regulation - Commissions - See paragraphs 30 to 51.

Gaming and Betting - Topic 764

Horse racing - Offences - Trainer responsibility rule - See paragraphs 30 to 51.

Gaming and Betting - Topic 783

Horse racing - Punishments - Doping - See paragraphs 30 to 51.

Trials - Topic 1160.3

Absolute liability offences - What constitute - See paragraphs 30 to 51.

Counsel:

Brendan van Niejenhuis and Carlo di Carlo, for the applicant;

Benjamin Salsberg, for Hayter;

No one appearing for Durham, MacLean and Robson.

This application was heard on April 28, 2016, before Dambrot, Stewart and Thorburn, JJ., of the Ontario Divisional Court. The following decision was delivered for the court by Dambrot, J., on May 11, 2016.