Flanders v. Horse Racing Commission (Man.), 2015 MBCA 12

Citation: Flanders v. Horse Racing Commission (Man.), 2015 MBCA 12 Date: 20150127 Docket: AI14-30-08140 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF MANITOBA Coram: Chief Justice Richard J. Chartier Madam Justice Freda M. Steel Mr. Justice William J. Burnett BETWEEN : GRANT FLANDERS ) J. C. Prober and ) B. T. King (Applicant) Appellant ) for the Appellant ) - and - ) W. S.

Gange ) for the Respondent MANITOBA HORSE RACING ) COMMISSION ) Appeal heard and ) Decision pronounced: (Respondent) Respondent ) January 27, 2015 CHARTIER C.J.M. (for the Court): [ 1 ] The appellant, Grant Flanders (Flanders), raises no less than 15 grounds of appeal. We do not see any merit to most of them, especially the grounds relating to the insufficiency of the reasons given by the Manitoba Horse Racing Commission (MHRC) or to the absence of a transcript of its hearing.

The principal issue on this appeal is whether MHRC’s decision to deny Flanders’ request for an adjournment constituted a breach of his right to natural justice. [ 2 ] Probably no decision is more discretionary than a decision to grant or deny an adjournment. As a result of this very broad discretion, any reviewing court must show a high level of deference to the exercise of that discretion.

A reviewing court should only interfere with the exercise of that discretion in rare circumstances, namely, when it is convinced that the rules of natural justice or procedural fairness were breached. [ 3 ] In this case, the Court of Queen’s Bench judge (the reviewing judge) reviewed the history of the proceedings and held that MHRC’s refusal to grant the adjournment did not, in the circumstances, amount to a denial of fairness or a breach of Flanders’ right to natural justice.

Critical to the reviewing judge’s decision were his findings first, that Flanders failed to make a timely request for an adjournment and, second, that the reason for that failing remained unexplained. He noted that MHRC tried to accommodate Flanders by offering several alternate dates as well as the opportunity to be heard by teleconference. [ 4 ] Counsel for Flanders attempted to explain today why the alternatives offered by MHRC were not actual alternatives. However, the actual explanation that was in evidence before the reviewing judge was as follows: …. … I am not available on February 25, 2012.

I would appreciate scheduling another date for that sometime after Saturday March 10 as I will be out of the Country until approximately that time. In our view, it remained open to the reviewing judge to find, on the record before him, that Flanders was given real alternatives and chose not to participate. [ 5 ] While we were a little surprised that MHRC set a date peremptorily, without prior consultation with Flanders’ counsel, we do note that, in this case, MHRC did give alternative dates to counsel.

In the end, and despite the able arguments of Flanders’ counsel, we remain unconvinced that the reviewing judge committed any reversible error.

[ 6 ] The appeal is dismissed with costs. C.J.M. J.A. J.A.