The Ontario Harness Horse Association today officially commented on the June 30, 2010 ruling by the Ontario Superior Court in favour of horseman Jim Whelan in regard to him refusing to sign the Woodbine Entertainment Group's Application for Access Rights

agreement.

As earlier reported, The Honourable Mr. Justice Maurice Cullity, The Honourable Madam Justice Anne M. Molloy and The Honourable Madam Justice Katherine E. Swinton ruled 2-1 in favour of Whelan. Each side issued reasons for judgment, with Cullity and Molloy stating that "it is not reasonable for WEG to exclude those who refuse to sign an agreement containing terms that purport to give WEG powers beyond what it legally possesses."

To read that report, click here.

OHHA statement on that matter appears below.

OHHA is pleased with the outcome of the Ontario Divisional Court’s decision in the matter of Jim Whelan, Woodbine Entertainment Group and the Ontario Racing Commission, which allowed Mr. Whelan’s application for judicial review. The court (in a 2-1 majority decision) set aside the Commission’s decision and ordered that WEG is prohibited from excluding Mr. Whelan’s entries for not having signed the current version of WEG’s Access Agreement.

The court concluded that: “the ORC acted unreasonably in finding that a racetrack could exclude a licensed person from participating in racing for refusing to agree to waive procedural rights provided for in legislation that was ORC’s responsibility to enforce”; and that “it is not reasonable to require Mr. Whelan to execute the Access Agreement as a condition to racing at WEG tracks.” As part of its reasoning on this issue, which involved certain terms of the Access Agreement, the court made the following statements in the decision:

• “The ORC has said repeatedly, as has this court, that WEG cannot contract out of the jurisdiction of the ORC to protect the rights of individuals licensed by the ORC to participate in horse racing. The case law also establishes that WEG cannot set itself up as a second tier regulator entitled to arbitrarily exclude individuals from racing at its tracks, in its own discretion, without any fault and without an opportunity to be heard.”
• “[I]t seems to me that it ill lies in the mouth of the ORC to state in one breath that ‘For the ORC to pay mouth honour to, but fail to practice and enforce, integrity is hypocrisy – 'Though the heavens fall', licensees must not be denied due process,’ and then in the next breath tell individuals that if they do not agree to abandon those very rights, WEG can bar them from racing with impunity.”
• “In my view, the ORC’s conclusion that WEG is entitled to do so in the public interest cannot be said to be reasonable or to fall within that range of possible outcomes that can be reasonably justified.”

OHHA’s view is that it is very important that horsepeople who are licensed in good standing and who follow the governing rules should be entitled to participate in the sport and earn a living at all licensed racetracks in the province. Licensed horsepeople should not be denied the right to participate in racing arbitrarily and without due process, nor forced to sign an access agreement to that effect. OHHA views this decision as a step in maintaining these important rights.