Anthony Williams

The Ontario Harness Horse Association (OHHA) appealed a decision by the Director of the Ontario Racing Commission allocating Standardbred Revenue Allocation (SRA) marketing funds to both OHHA and the Central Ontario Standardbred Association (COSA).

The funds, totaling over $2.1 million, were held in trust by the Woodbine Entertainment Group after its contract with OHHA expired and it entered a new contract with COSA.

The majority of the panel denied the appeal, finding it had jurisdiction to hear the matter de novo and to interpret the underlying Memorandum of Understanding and Business Plan in the best interests of racing.

The panel concluded that COSA qualifies as a provincially recognized horsepersons' association and ordered the funds to be distributed proportionally between OHHA and COSA based on wagering levels and racetrack affiliations, subject to conditions on their use for marketing.

A dissenting member would have allocated all funds to OHHA.

The Ontario Harness Horse Association and Central Ontario Standardbred Association appealed an order of the executive director.

The Ontario Racing Commission panel issued procedural directions for an upcoming hearing, including notifying other industry parties to determine their participation.

The panel also scheduled a motion to quash a subpoena and ordered that the executive director's January 7, 2016 order be stayed until the conclusion of the hearing relating to the SRA funds.

The appellant, a thoroughbred racehorse trainer, appealed a positive test result and penalties imposed by the Stewards after his horse tested positive for Levamisole and Pemoline.

The appellant had administered a compounded medication containing Levamisole on the advice of his veterinarian for a legitimate therapeutic purpose, adhering to the recommended withdrawal time.

The Ontario Racing Commission panel found that while the positive test was proven as an absolute liability offence and a waiver of the breach was not appropriate, the appellant had established due diligence.

Considering the mitigating factors, including the appellant's excellent reputation and lack of intent to gain an unfair advantage, the panel allowed the appeal in part, reducing the penalty to a $1,000 fine and setting aside the suspension.

The appellant, a standardbred horse trainer, appealed penalties imposed after a horse he trained tested positive for Minoxidil, a Class III drug.

The drug was traced to the horse's owner, who used Rogaine and frequently interacted with the horse.

The panel found the appellant established due diligence, as the contamination was accidental and not readily discoverable.

Consequently, the panel reduced the penalty to a non-oppressive $300 fine and set aside the suspension.

However, the panel declined to waive the absolute liability rule breach, finding no exceptional circumstances to justify doing so.

The appellant appealed a penalty imposed for a positive test in a horse racing matter.

During the hearing, the Ontario Racing Commission panel adjourned the matter to April 13 and 15, 2016, due to timing issues.

The panel extended the stay of the appellant's penalty until April 16, 2016, noting that if successful on a due diligence defence, the appellant would be entitled to no suspension and a non-oppressive fine.

The continuation of the hearing was marked peremptory upon the appellant.

The appellant, a licensed thoroughbred horse trainer, appealed a Stewards' decision imposing a 60-day suspension and a $1,500 fine after his horse tested positive for excessive TCO2 levels.

The appellant argued that his Charter rights were breached and that he was denied procedural fairness because of a delay in releasing the residue blood sample for independent ion concentration testing, which he claimed could have exonerated him.

The Ontario Racing Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the economic sanctions did not engage Section 7 of the Charter.

The Commission also held that the delay in releasing the sample was not inordinate or oppressive, and the appellant was not significantly prejudiced, as the sample ultimately lacked sufficient plasma for the requested test.

The Stewards' penalty was affirmed.

The appellant, a licensed trainer, appealed a ruling that placed his horse on the judges' list and made it ineligible to race for 90 days following a positive test for minoxidil.

The parties presented a joint submission to vary the dates of the horse's ineligibility and restore the result of a recent qualifier.

The Commission found the joint submission fair and reasonable, accepted it, and varied the ruling accordingly.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Proposed Order to Refuse to Renew his Licence.

The Ontario Racing Commission previously denied the appeal and confirmed the refusal.

In this decision regarding penalty, the Commission ordered that pursuant to the Racing Commission Act, the appellant may not apply for a licence for two years from the date of the refusal.

The appellant, a licensed Standardbred trainer, appealed a ruling denying his request for a stay of his licence suspension pending a full appeal.

The suspension was imposed after he failed a breathalyzer test at the racetrack, registering a blood alcohol content over three times the limit.

Applying the three-part test for a stay, the Commission found no serious issue to be tried, that the harm to the appellant was not irreparable, and that the balance of convenience favoured protecting the public interest and the integrity of racing.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant, a standardbred trainer, appealed rulings regarding a positive test for Salmeterol in a horse he trained.

The parties presented an Agreed Statement of Facts and a Joint Recommendation as to Penalty.

The Ontario Racing Commission accepted the joint submission, imposing a four-month suspension, a $2,200 fine, and a two-year probation period with conditions including unannounced searches and out-of-competition testing.

The appellant, a licensed owner and trainer, appealed the immediate suspension of his licence following a positive test for marijuana.

The Ontario Racing Commission accepted a proposed restorative justice agreement between the Administration and the appellant.

Under the agreement, the appellant must participate in a restorative justice process, meet with a substance abuse professional, and pay a $1,000 fine for breaching a previous post-violation agreement before his licence can be reinstated.

The appellant appealed a judges' ruling that declined to place the horse HEAVENLY HILL behind the appellant's horse, LADY MARINA, after HEAVENLY HILL went inside a pylon and failed to completely clear the pylons when using the open stretch.

The Ontario Racing Commission found that while HEAVENLY HILL did violate the pylon and passing lane rules, the judges properly exercised their discretion under the rules in deciding not to alter the order of finish, as the offending horse did not gain an unfair advantage or improve its position.

The appeal was denied.

The appellant, a quarter horse jockey and exercise person, appealed a ruling that suspended his licence following a third positive test for marijuana.

At the hearing, the parties agreed to a pilot restorative justice approach.

The Ontario Racing Commission ordered the appellant to enter the restorative justice program, pay a $1,000 fine within 30 days, and conditionally reinstated his licence subject to his continued compliance with the program.

The appellants appealed two rulings issued by the judges at Georgian Downs.

The driver was found to have violated Rule 22.05.01(a) of the Rules of Standardbred Racing by changing course in the stretch and causing interference to a trailing horse.

As a result, the winning horse was placed second and the driver received a three-day suspension.

The Ontario Racing Commission held a hearing de novo and reviewed video evidence and witness testimony.

The Commission found on a balance of probabilities that the driver did change course and impede the trailing horse.

The appeals were denied and the rulings were upheld.

The appellant appealed a decision by horse racing Judges denying trainer transfer applications for six racehorses.

The Ontario Racing Commission allowed the appeal, finding that the Judges lacked the authority under Rule 26.08 of the Rules of Standardbred Racing to deny the applications.

The Commission held that the two conditions precedent for denying a transfer—that the trainer must be suspended and the horse must be trained by him or under his care—did not co-exist at the same time.

The appellant appealed a ruling by horse racing judges that prohibited him from entering the restricted area of an association.

The Ontario Racing Commission panel determined that while judges do have the authority to expel properly signed-in guests from restricted areas under the Rules of Standardbred Racing, the specific ruling against the appellant was not fair and reasonable.

The Administration failed to meet its burden of proof on a balance of probabilities.

The appeal was allowed, with full reasons to follow.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Stewards disallowing a claim of foul in the Northern Dancer Stakes horse race.

The appellant sought to have the winning horse disqualified for interference and placed behind the appellant's horse.

The Ontario Racing Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that while interference did occur, it did not alter the finish of the race or improve the placing of the offending horse.

The licensee, a standardbred racehorse trainer, appealed a Proposed Order by the Director of the Ontario Racing Commission alleging he participated in racing while his licence was suspended.

The Commission found that despite transferring his horses to another trainer, the licensee maintained significant involvement in their care, banking, and sale, and had extensive contact with the new stable staff.

The Commission concluded the licensee participated directly or indirectly in racing while suspended, violating Rule 6.10.01.

The Director's application was granted, and the licensee was suspended for over nine months and fined $5,000.

The Director of the Ontario Racing Commission applied for a declaration that the licensee participated in racing while his licence was under suspension.

The panel granted the application, finding a violation of Rule 6.10.01 of the Rules of Standardbred Racing.

The licensee was suspended for nine months and five days and fined $5,000.

Lyle MacArthur appealed against standardbred track judges' rulings imposing a 60-day suspension, a $1,500 fine, and two years' probation after his horse tested positive for a TCO2 overage.

The parties presented a joint submission indicating that an interaction between two permitted therapeutic substances was a causal factor in the overage.

The Ontario Racing Commission accepted the joint submission and varied the penalty by staying 15 days of the 60-day suspension.