Ontario Harness Horse Association v. Canadian Pari-Mutuel Agency, 2005 FC 1320

Date: 20050927

Docket: T-640-03

Citation: 2005 FC 1320

Ottawa, Ontario, September 27, 2005

Present:           The Honourable Madam Justice Heneghan                                    

BETWEEN:

                                     ONTARIO HARNESS HORSE ASSOCIATION

                                                                                                                                            Applicant

                                                                           and

                                         CANADIAN PARI-MUTUEL AGENCY and

                                                 SUDBURY DOWNS HOLDINGS,

                   A DIVISION OF MACRANALD ENTERPRISES INCORPORATED

                                                                                                                                      Respondents

                                            REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER

INTRODUCTION

[1]                The Ontario Harness Horse Association (the "OHHA") seeks judicial review pursuant to section 18.1 of the Federal Courts Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7, as amended, of the decision of the Executive Director of the Canadian Pari-Mutuel Agency (the"CPMA"), made on or about March 26, 2003 and communicated to the OHHA by letter dated April 4, 2003. In its decision, the CPMA approved Sudbury Downs to conduct inter-track betting with various host tracks in Ontario and in other provinces between March 26 and December 31, 2003, pursuant to paragraph 90(1)(d) of the Pari-Mutuel Betting Supervision Regulations, SOR/91-365 (the "Regulations") enacted under subsection 204(8) of the Criminal Code of Canada, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, as amended (the "Criminal Code").

BACKGROUND

i)           The Parties

[2]                The OHHA is a voluntary association representing approximately five thousand horsemen in Ontario, including owners, trainers, drivers and grooms, who are members of the standard-bred racing industry. The OHHA was created in 1961 and is licensed by the Ontario Racing Commission, the agency in Ontario that is responsible for management and direction of the horse racing industry, including the general licensing of the racetrack operations, pursuant to the Racing Commission Act, 2000, S.O. 2000, c. 20.

[3]                The management of horse racing is a matter of provincial jurisdiction, but the conduct of betting and wagering falls within federal jurisdiction. Pari-mutuel betting is a form of betting in which individuals who wager on winning horses share in the total amount bet by the public, less a percentage paid to the racetrack operators. Inter-track betting is defined in section 2 of the Regulations as follows:

[4]                The OHHA negotiates agreements with racing associations concerning, among other things, the distribution of revenue from inter-track betting.

[5]                Sudbury Downs Holdings is a division of MacRanald Enterprises Incorporated. It owns and operates Sudbury Downs racetrack in the City of Greater Sudbury, in northern Ontario. It has existed as a harness horse-racing track since 1974 and may be described as a racing "association" for the purposes of subsection 204(11) of the Criminal Code. That term is to be distinguished from the entities known as "horsemen's associations" which are, essentially, trade associations in which membership is voluntary.

[6]                The CPMA is a Special Operating Agency, authorized by section 204 of the Criminal Code. It functions as a national regulatory unit. It is responsible for the administration of pari-mutuel betting on horses in Canada in accordance with the Regulations. Mr. Thane Bell, Associate Executive Director of the CPMA, provided an affidavit in this application for judicial review in which he described the purpose of the Regulations in the following terms:

[...] The scope of the Regulations is the supervision and operation of pari-mutuel betting at racetracks and the prohibition, restriction and regulation of the possession of drugs and equipment used in the administering of drugs at racetracks. The purpose of the Regulations is to provide effective and efficient pari-mutuel betting supervision in order to protect the betting public against fraudulent practices, thereby helping to maintain a viable racing industry.

[7]                The CPMA exercises no regulatory authority over horseracing; that is a matter within provincial jurisdiction. The role of the CPMA is directed to wagering and involves racing to the extent necessary to ensure fairness in its decision-making.

[8]                Wagering is prohibited by sections 201 and 202 of the Criminal Code. However, an exemption is provided by subparagraph 204(1)(c)(ii) for bets made through a pari-mutuel system if there is compliance with the Regulations. Paragraph 204(8)(e) authorizes the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food to regulate pari-mutuel systems of betting.

[9]                The Regulations require race track owners, such as Sudbury Downs, to apply for permits, authorizations and approvals (the "Licences") to conduct various kinds of betting. Paragraph 90(1)(d) of the Regulations provides as follows:

[10]            A race track, such as Sudbury Downs, must provide evidence of an executed agreement with the horsemen under contract to it for the period of the proposed Licences when applying for a Licence to conduct inter-track betting. According to the affidavit of Mr. Bell, filed on behalf of the CPMA, the agreements must only show that the horsemen and the race track have agreed about the scheduling of races (the "Schedule") for, and the sharing of revenues (the "Split") from, the proposed inter-track betting. These agreements will be described as the "Pre-Licence Agreements".

[11]            In practice, in Ontario, the Ontario Racing Commission establishes the Schedule. However, since the Regulations came into effect in 1991, the horsemen's associations have negotiated and executed the Pre-Licence Agreements on behalf of the horsemen. The designation "horsemen under contract" to a racing association is not defined, but "horsemen" is defined in section 2 of the Regulations as follows:

[12]            The practice of the CPMA was to issue Licences for a calendar year and, for that reason, the Pre-Licence Agreements were usually negotiated and signed in the late fall. For approximately twenty-four years before 1998, the OHHA entered into a series of Pre-Licence Agreements with Sudbury Downs, addressing the terms and conditions under which racing would occur at Sudbury Downs and how revenue would be divided. However, in 1998, the OHHA and Sudbury Downs were unable to reach an agreement and a number of local horsemen in northern Ontario formed the Northern Horsemen's Association (the "NHA").

[13]            On July 24, 1998, the NHA concluded Pre-Licence Agreements with Sudbury Downs, incorporating the Schedule and the Split, and continued to do so in the following years. The CPMA has recognized, and continues to recognize the Pre-Licence Agreements between Sudbury Downs and the NHA as complying with the regulatory criteria because these Pre-Licence Agreements were executed by the horsemen and address the Schedule and the Split, as required by paragraph 90(1)(d) of the Regulations.

[14]            The OHHA negotiated Pre-Licence Agreements concerning the Schedule and the Split from proposed inter-track betting with several Ontario racing associations for the period January 1, 2003 to December 31, 2003. These racing associations include: Clinton Raceway Inc., Flamboro Downs Holdings Limited, Georgian Downs Limited, Hanover Raceway, Hiawatha Horse Park Inc., Kawartha Downs Limited, Kawartha Downs Raceway, Quinte Exhibition & Raceway (Belleville Raceway), Rideau Carleton Raceway Holding Limited, Western Fair Association, Windsor Raceway Inc., Winrac Development Inc. (Dresden), Winrac Development Inc. (Woodstock), Woodbine Entertainment Group, and Woolwich Agricultural Society.

[15]            A condition of the Pre-Licence Agreements, with the exception of the agreement with Woodbine Entertainment Group, was that the named racing associations would not participate in any form of inter-track betting without the approval of the OHHA. The agreement with Woodbine Entertainment Group contains a specific provision concerning inter-track betting at Sudbury Downs.

[16]            The OHHA has not approved inter-track betting of the race-tracks otherwise listed above and Sudbury Downs.

[17]            On or about November 11, 2002, Sudbury Downs applied to the CPMA for approval to conduct inter-track betting for the year 2003. On December 3, 2002, the CPMA advised Sudbury Downs that its application could not be approved until it provided evidence of an agreement with its horsemen in accordance with paragraphs 85(4)(f) and 90(1)(d) of the Regulations.

[18]            On or about March 25, 2003, Sudbury Downs provided the CPMA with evidence of the Pre-Licence Agreement it had negotiated with the NHA on or about March 25, 2003. This Pre-Licence Agreement contained clauses addressing the Schedule and the Split. The CPMA also received copies of the agreements between Sudbury Downs and the host tracks with which it intended to inter-track bet.

[19]            By letter dated March 26, 2003, the OHHA advised the CPMA that, pursuant to its Pre-Licence Agreements, it had not approved of inter-track betting at Sudbury Downs and consequently, the agreements between the OHHA and the racing associations were not operating. The OHHA also informed the CPMA that the requirements for inter-track betting under the Regulations had not been satisfied because the horsemen under contract at each of the racing associations had not agreed to the Schedule and Split for inter-track betting with Sudbury Downs for 2003.

[20]            On or about March 26, 2003, the CPMA approved Sudbury Downs to conduct inter-track betting, separate pool betting, foreign race separate pool betting and foreign race inter-track betting with various host tracks throughout Ontario and elsewhere, from March 26, 2003 to December 31, 2003. The host tracks with which Sudbury Downs sought to inter-track bet had all received the same approvals to inter-track bet by the CPMA. Following the issuance of approval by the CPMA, Sudbury Downs entered into Common Pool Wagering Agreements with the host tracks, who agreed to transmit the audio-visual signal of selected races to Sudbury Downs via satellite to allow the conduct of pari-mutuel wagering on those races. By letter dated April 4, 2003, the CPMA informed the OHHA of its decision to approve inter-track betting at Sudbury downs.

ISSUES

[21]            Four issues arise from this application for judicial review. First, does the OHHA have standing to bring this application. Second, what is the applicable standard of review for decisions of the CPMA. Third, does paragraph 90(1)(d) of the Regulations require that before approval is given for inter-track betting, that both the host track and the satellite track have entered into Pre-Licence Agreements with the horsemen under contract to them, concerning the Schedule and the Split from the proposed inter-track betting. Finally, did the CPMA err in granting approval to Sudbury Downs to conduct inter-track betting pursuant to paragraph 90(1)(d) of the Regulations.

DISCUSSION AND DISPOSITION

i)           Standard of Review

[22]            The Applicant argues that the applicable standard of review is correctness, relying on the factors identified by the Supreme Court of Canada in Dr. Q. v. College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia, [2003] 1 S.C.R. 226. The factors to be considered, in a pragmatic and functional manner, are the matters of the appeal or review mechanism and the existence of a privative clause; the relative expertise of the tribunal; the purpose of the statute or regulation; and finally, the nature of the question.

[23]            The Applicant characterizes the question here as primarily a question of law, that is the interpretation of the Regulations and, accordingly, submits that less deference should be accorded to the CPMA on the grounds of relative expertise and the nature of the question involved. The weight of these factors tend in favour of applying the least deferential standard, that of correctness.

[24]            For its part, the CPMA submits that the appropriate standard of review is that applicable to simple discretionary decisions, that is the standard set out in [1982] 2 S.C.R. 2">Maple Lodge Farms Ltd. v. Canada, [1982] 2 S.C.R. 2. It argues that the decision to issue the approval met all the requirements of the Regulations and consequently, the discretion was properly exercised for a legitimate purpose and without regard to extraneous considerations.

[25]            Alternatively, the CPMA argues that upon applying the pragmatic and functional analysis outlined in Dr. Q., supra, an intermediate standard of reasonableness simpliciter should apply, rather than the standard of correctness.

[26]            Sudbury Downs agree with the CPMA that the decision in issue is a fairly discretionary one under the Regulations. As such, it is reviewable on limited grounds, as set out in [1982] 2 S.C.R. 2">Maple Lodge Farms Ltd., supra and Shell Canada Products Ltd. v. Vancouver (City), [1994] 1 S.C.R. 231.

[27]            In my opinion, the applicable standard of review depends upon the issue being addressed. I am satisfied that there are two distinct aspects of the decision here in issue, the first being whether or not the CPMA properly interpreted the requirements of paragraph 90(1)(d) of the Regulations and the second, assuming that the interpretation was correct, whether the decision under review is sustainable.

[28]            In relation to the first question, that is whether or not the CPMA properly interpreted the requirements of the Regulations, is a question of statutory interpretation and accordingly, a question of law. On that issue, the applicable standard of review is correctness. Applying the pragmatic and functional approach and the four contextual factors upon which it is based, that is the presence or absence of a privative clause or statutory right of appeal, the expertise of the Tribunal relative to that of the reviewing Court, the purpose of the legislation generally and the particular provision at issue, and finally, the nature of the question, I reach the following conclusions.

[29]            First, there is no privative clause or statutory right of appeal provided by the Regulations. Second, the Executive Director, as representative of the Minister, cannot be said to have greater expertise in questions of statutory interpretation than does the Court. However, on the other hand, his expertise on pari-mutuel policy and administration, management and control attracts substantial deference. Thirdly, the purpose of the Regulations and the provision in question confers upon the Executive Director limited authority to regulate pari-mutuel systems of betting on horse races, limited to ensuring fairness and protecting the betting public against fraudulent practices. That being so, the authority conferred upon the Executive Director does not extend, per se, to the interpretation, as a matter of law, of the Minister's statutory mandate. Finally, the nature of the question is a legal one. Accordingly, I conclude that the question must be reviewed on a standard of correctness.

[30]            Insofar as the review of the decision of the CPMA is concerned, I reach a different conclusion. I am not satisfied that this decision is in the nature of a discretionary decision, as argued by the Respondents. Rather, it appears to be a question of mixed fact and law, that is, the application of the statutory requirements to Sudbury Downs' application for inter-track betting. In my opinion, the standard of review analysis requires more deference here.

[31]            The CPMA's expertise is based in regulatory matters, particularly with respect to administering pari-mutuel betting on horses in accordance with the Regulations. As well, the application of paragraph 90(1)(d) of the Regulations to the facts presented in the application of Sudbury Downs, for inter-track betting, involves questions of mixed fact and law. These two factors favour a more deferential standard. In respect of this issue, that is the standard of reasonableness simpliciter.

ii)          Interpretation of Paragraph 90(1)(d) of the Regulations

[32]            The parties agree that the modern approach to statutory interpretation is that proposed by Driedger, where "the words of an Act are to be read in their entire context and in their grammatical and ordinary sense harmoniously with the scheme of the Act, the object of the Act, and the intention of Parliament": Elmer A. Driedger, Construction of Statutes, 2^nd. ed. (Toronto: Butterworths, 1983) at 87.    This approach has been widely endorsed by the Supreme Court of Canada as the preferred approach to statutory interpretation; see Rizzo & Rizzo Shoes Ltd (Re), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 27 and Alberta Union of Provincial Employees v. Lethbridge Community College, [2004] 1 S.C.R. 727.

[33]            In interpreting legislation, the Court must consider several questions. It must first look at the words; do the words have a plain and ordinary meaning, or is there ambiguity or lack of clarity. Second, the context of the legislation must be examined, including the history of the provision in question, the scheme of the statute and its object. Attention must also be given to the policy considerations of Parliament or, in the case of regulations, the Governor in Council.

[34]            Paragraph 90(1)(d) of the Regulations provides as follows:

[35]            Applying the relevant principles of statutory interpretation to this provision, I am of the view that what is required, in applying for approval for inter-track betting, is an executed Pre-License Agreement with the horsemen under contract to the racing association making the application, which agreement includes details of the Schedule and the Split. This requirement appears to be the same, whether the racing association is applying as a host track or a satellite track.

[36]            Paragraph 90(1)(c) further requires:

[37]            This paragraph requires that the racing associations, that is the host track and the satellite track have an agreement with each other to conduct inter-track betting. There is nothing in the wording of paragraph 90(1)(c) requiring that there be an agreement between the horsemen of one racing association and the racing association with which it intends to inter-track bet, i.e., no requirement that the horsemen under contract to the host track have an agreement or consent to inter-track betting with a proposed satellite track. The agreement is between the associations, not individual members of the associations.

[38]            With respect to the purpose of the Regulations, subsection 204(9) of the Criminal Code provides as follows:

[39]            The language of the enabling statute, that is subsections 204(8) and (9) of the Criminal Code, confirms the intention of Parliament that the Regulations provide effective and efficient pari-mutuel betting supervision in order to protect the betting public against fraudulent practices, thereby helping to maintain a viable racing industry.

[40]            The Regulatory Impact Analysis Statement (the "RIAS") relating to amendments of paragraph 90(1)(d) of the Regulations undertaken in 1992, Is Exhibit "B" to the affidavit of John Walzak, sworn on behalf of the Applicant. The RIAS describes the amended Regulations as follows:

... The provisions of these requirements pertain to the execution of agreements between race track associations and the horsemen under contract to them when the associations apply for a betting permit.

...

This amendment [a 1989 amendment to the Criminal Code permitting teletheatre betting] stated that every race track association was required to provide proof that it executed an agreement with the horsemen under contract to it before the proposed theatre, inter-track or separate pool betting could be approved by the Race Track Division. The agreement covered the scheduling of races and the sharing of revenues from the theatre, inter-track or separate pool betting.

iii)         Did the CPMA Err in Granting Approval to Sudbury Downs

[41]            In light of my conclusion that the CPMA properly interpreted the statutory requirements of paragraph 90(1)(d) of the Regulations, the next question is whether it erred in granting approval to Sudbury Downs.

[42]            The evidence contained in the Certified Record indicates that Sudbury Downs provided a copy of an executed Pre-License Agreement with the NHA, dated March 25, 2003, which contained clauses setting out agreements for the Schedule and the Split. As well, Sudbury Downs submitted copies of the agreements between it and the host tracks with which it intended to inter-track bet. The Applicant's evidence was that the OHHA had negotiated Pre-License Agreements concerning the Schedule and Split from proposed inter-track betting with a number of Ontario racing associations for the 2003 racing season.

[43]            However, it was submitted by the Applicant that the CPMA erred by failing to give consideration to certain evidence which it considers relevant, namely the fact that the Pre-License Agreements negotiated between the OHHA and the host tracks contained provisions which suggested that the OHHA had to approve inter-track betting before a host track could participate. However, even if this evidence was not considered, that does not make the ultimate decision unreasonable.

[44]            The question of satisfaction of a condition precedent to a Pre-License Agreement is a private issue for the OHHA to resolve with each of the racing associations with which it had a contract. That is a contractual dispute beyond the scope of judicial review and consequently, is not an issue for the CPMA or for the public.

[45]            In my opinion, the CPMA's approval of Sudbury Downs' application to conduct inter-track betting is essentially a preliminary permit. The obvious condition which must be fulfilled is that an agreement be reached between the satellite track, in this case Sudbury Downs, and the host tracks with which it wishes to conduct inter-track betting. That is a matter which the tracks must resolve themselves. It is beyond the scope of the CPMA to inquire whether a particular host track is breaching its contractual obligations to its horsemen in negotiating an agreement with a satellite track, for inter-track betting. I note that Sudbury Downs had negotiated agreements with a number of other host tracks, other than those affiliated with the OHHA. To deny Sudbury Downs a permit based upon a contractual dispute to which it is not a party would deny it the ability to conduct inter-track betting with a number of other host tracks who are not involved in the present dispute.

[46]            As noted above, I have concluded that the applicable standard of review to the decision of the CPMA is reasonableness simpliciter, since the decision involves consideration by that body of a question of mixed fact and law. Applying that standard, I am not persuaded that the decision of the CPMA to approve Sudbury Downs for the conduct of inter-track betting is unreasonable.

iv)         Question of Standing

[47]            Finally, the issue of standing remains to be addressed. Does the Applicant have standing to challenge this decision of the CPMA.

[48]            There are two avenues by which an applicant can establish standing in its judicial review application. Section 18.1(1) of the Federal Courts Act, supra, addresses standing as follows:

[49]            This provision is broad enough to authorize the recognition of standing even if the Applicant is not "directly affected" where the test for public interest standing is met; see Kwicksutaineuk/Ah-kwa-mish Tribes v. Canada (Minister of Fisheries) (2003), 227 F.T.R. 96 (T.D.).

[50]            Since the Applicant in this proceeding is not the Attorney General of Canada, the question is whether it is "... anyone directly affected" by the CPMA's approval of inter-track betting at Sudbury Downs. If not, can it show that it has public interest standing.

[51]            Although the Applicant states in its notice of application that it represents its members in negotiations of purses, racing conditions and all matters affecting the horseracing industry as a whole, that is with the tracks, Standardbred Canada, the Ontario Racing Commission, and the provincial and federal governments and their agencies, it is not the sole and exclusive representative of horsemen. It has no vested rights to represent all horsemen in Ontario, without regard to the applicable regulatory requirements.

[52]            The decision which is the subject matter of this application for judicial review involved an application by the Respondent Sudbury Downs for approval to conduct inter-track betting in accordance with paragraph 90(1)(d) of the Regulations. The horsemen under contract to Sudbury Downs, as evidenced by the Pre-License Agreement submitted to the CPMA, were those horsemen represented exclusively by the NHA, not the Applicant. Accordingly, the parties affected by the CPMA's decision would include Sudbury Downs, the NHA and the racing associations with which Sudbury Downs intends to inter-track bet.

[53]            Consequently, there is no evidence that the Applicant has an existing contractual relationship with Sudbury Downs. In my opinion, the Applicant is only affected indirectly by the CPMA's decision which merely creates a situation that may, eventually, affect the Applicant. At best, the Applicant has a potential interest in relation to the inter-track betting which will occur as a result of the CPMA's approval of Sudbury Downs to inter-track bet with host tracks, some of which have negotiated Pre-License Agreements with the Applicant.

[54]            That being said, I am satisfied that no evidence has been submitted by the Applicant to show that it, or the horsemen it represents, are directly affected by the decision to issue the License to Sudbury Downs for inter-track betting. The analysis must then address whether the Applicant has shown that it has public interest standing to bring this application.

[55]            The Supreme Court of Canada, in Canadian Council of Churches v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1992] 1 S.C.R. 236 set out a tri-partite test for the recognition of public interest standing. That test provides that an applicant must establish that there is a serious issue raised, the applicant has a genuine interest in the matter and that there is no other reasonable and effective way to bring the matter before the Court.

[56]            While a public interest applicant need not establish that the alleged illegality of an administrative decision or act has caused or will cause harm in order to show the seriousness of the issue raised, as noted by the Court in Kwicksutaineuk, supra, the Court must consider the overall strength of an applicant's claim in assessing whether a serious issue is raised. In Sierra Club of Canada v. Canada (Minister of Finance) (1998), 157 F.T.R. 123 (T.D.), the Court spoke about the existence of a serious issue in the following terms at paragraph 38:

It seems now to be settled law that the seriousness of the issues raised by a public interest applicant encompasses both the importance of the issues and the likelihood of their being resolved in favour of the applicant. Given the discretionary nature of public interest standing, and its concern to ensure that scarce public resources are not squandered and other litigants are not subjected to further delay, it seems appropriate that the merits of the claim should be taken into consideration [citations omitted].

[57]            I am not satisfied that there is a serious issue for trial in the present application. As noted above, it appears that, in effect, the Applicant is seeking to have this Court enforce contractual obligations between itself and the racing associations with which it had negotiated Pre-License Agreements. The Applicant argues that those agreements contained a condition precedent, namely that before conducting inter-track betting with a satellite track, the host track must first obtain its consent. However, I do not see the connection between this condition precedent and the approval granted by the CPMA to Sudbury Downs to conduct inter-track betting.

[58]            It is my opinion that the approval by the CPMA, at this stage is merely an authorization to conduct inter-track betting. A condition of that approval is that a monthly schedule be provided to the CPMA. As well, a copy of inter-track agreements must be on file with the host track prior to the betting commencing. It seems to me that the Applicant is really contesting the inter-track agreements between Sudbury Downs and the various host tracks with which it has negotiated a Pre-License Agreement. That matter is beyond the scope of the CPMA's regulatory mandate.

[59]            The second question, whether the Applicant has a genuine interest in the matter, is likewise not satisfied. There does not appear to be any question that the Applicant is affected by the approval of Sudbury Downs to inter-track bet, in the sense that some of the host tracks with which it has an agreement will be offering inter-track betting to Sudbury Downs. That being said however, it can be argued, and I am satisfied that this is the case, the effect on the Applicant is indirect rather than direct.

[60]            The Applicant appears to be operating an agenda of its own, in seeking to exclude those racing associations which do not utilize it as the exclusive representative of the horsemen under contract to it. There is no evidence of harm to the Applicant by the CPMA's approval of Sudbury Downs to inter-track bet. Indeed, it has been suggested by the CPMA that, at least in the short term, inter-track betting would increase revenues at Sudbury Downs for the track and the horsemen, as well as at the host track and for the horsemen at those tracks. That point was conceded by the Applicant's affiant, Mr. Walzak, in cross-examination, as follows:

Q.             I refer you to paragraph 12 on page 3 of your second affidavit. Are you saying there that you agree that in the short term, at least, inter-track betting would increase revenues at Sudbury Downs for the track and the horsepeople at the track and the horsepeople at the host tracks?

A.             It-it may.

[61]            Finally, I am satisfied that there is another "reasonable and effective way" to bring the CPMA's decision that is here in issue, before the Court, that is by a party involved in the application for approval, including the NHA, Sudbury Downs or one of the host tracks with which Sudbury Downs has an agreement to inter-track bet. As well, it would be appropriate for a horseman who is not represented by the NHA, but who has an interest in the Split and Schedule at Sudbury Downs, to challenge the decision of the CPMA which is the subject of this application. The Applicant did not submit any evidence that it was representing such a horseman.

[62]            In the result, I conclude that the Applicant lacks standing to bring this application for judicial review. However, in any event, as noted above, I have found that there is no basis for judicial intervention in the decision made by the CPMA in this case.

[63]            The application for judicial review is dismissed with costs.

                                               ORDER

This application for judicial review is dismissed with costs.

                                                                                      "E. Heneghan"

                                                                                                   J.F.C.

                                     FEDERAL COURT

    NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD

DOCKET:                  T-640-03

STYLE OF CAUSE: ONTARIO HARNESS HORSE ASSOCIATION

v.

CANADIAN PARI-MUTUEL AGENCY

AND SUDBURY DOWNS HOLDINGS,

A DIVISION OF MACRANALD

ENTERPRISES INCORPORATED

PLACE OF HEARING:                                 TORONTO

DATE OF HEARING:                                   MARCH 29, 2005

REASONS FOR ORDER AND

ORDER:                    THE HONOURABLE MADAM JUSTICE HENEGHAN

DATED:                     SEPTEMBER 27, 2005

APPEARANCES:

JOHN B. LASKIN     FOR THE APPLICANT

DOUGLAS J. LOS     FOR THE RESPONDENT, SUDBURY DOWNS

HOLDINGS, A DIVISION OF MACRANALD

ENTERPRISES INCORPORATED

SUZANNE M. DUNCAN                               FOR THE RESPONDENT, CANADIAN PARI-MUTUEL

AGENCY

SOLICITORS ON THE RECORD:

TORYS LLP

TORONTO, ONTARIO                                  FOR APPLICANT

WEAVER, SIMMONS LLP

SUDBURY, ONTARIO                                   FOR RESPONDENT, SUDBURY DOWNS

HOLDINGS, A DIVISION OF MACRANALD

ENTERPRISES INCORPORATED

JOHN H. SIMS, Q.C.

DEPUTY ATTORNEY

GENERAL OF CANADA                               FOR RESPONDENT, CANADIAN PARI-MUTUEL AGENCY