Anthony Williams

The Appellants, licensed standardbred trainers and owners, appealed the suspension of their licences by the Deputy Director of the Ontario Racing Commission following their declarations of bankruptcy.

The Panel found that the Appellants violated Rule 3.09 of the Rules of Standardbred Racing by accumulating unpaid obligations, becoming bankrupt, and displaying financial irresponsibility.

The Panel upheld the suspensions of their original licences while they remain undischarged bankrupts, but permitted the Director to license them as Grooms to work for wages for another licensed participant.

The appellant, a licensed standardbred trainer, appealed an immediate suspension and a proposed order of a two-year suspension and $15,000 fine issued by the Director of the Ontario Racing Commission.

The Administration alleged that the appellant continued to participate in racing as a shadow or hidden trainer through a former employee while his licence was suspended.

The panel found that the Administration failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that the appellant acted as a shadow trainer.

The immediate suspension was vacated and the notice of proposed order was dismissed.

The Appellants, licensed standardbred trainers and owners, applied for stays of Orders of Immediate Suspension and holds on their purse monies.

The suspensions and holds were issued following an investigation alleging they facilitated the participation of a suspended trainer in racing activities.

The Ontario Racing Commission denied the stay applications, finding a reasonable prospect of conviction based on circumstantial evidence, including telephone records and witness statements.

The Commission held that proceeding with the Notices was in the public interest and that the Appellants failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances justifying a stay.

The appellant appealed an Order of Immediate Suspension and a Notice of Proposed Order issued by the Director of the Ontario Racing Commission.

Following an oral decision in a related matter, the parties submitted a joint proposal.

On consent, the Commission ordered that the appellant withdraw his appeal with no costs, quashed the immediate suspension, and vacated the Director's proposed order.

The appellant, a licensed owner and trainer, appealed a Stewards' ruling imposing a 45-day suspension, a $1,500 fine, and a two-year probation after his horse tested positive for Acepromazine.

The Ontario Racing Commission accepted a joint submission on disposition, ordering a 45-day suspension (with 5 days stayed), a $1,500 fine (with $750 stayed), and a two-year probation with conditions including random searches and out-of-competition testing.

The appellants appealed Orders of Immediate Suspension issued by the Executive Director of the Ontario Racing Commission.

In this interim decision regarding disclosure, the Vice Chair reviewed unredacted notebook entries of an investigator to determine if further disclosure was required.

The Vice Chair concluded that the redacted portions contained information clearly irrelevant to the proceedings and ordered no further disclosure.

The appellant, a licensed horse racing participant, appealed a ruling and applied for a stay of his suspension pending the appeal.

The Ontario Racing Commission panel denied the application for a stay.

The appellants, standardbred licensees, appealed orders of immediate suspension issued by the Executive Director of the Ontario Racing Commission.

As a preliminary matter, the appellants sought a review of all redactions in the disclosure materials, including a Senior Judges Report and investigators' notebook entries.

The Vice Chair reviewed the unredacted materials and found that most of the redacted information was irrelevant.

However, the Administration was ordered to provide unredacted notebook entries for 17 days to the panel for review, and to review and disclose relevant information from four additional days of unredacted material.

The appellant, a licensed horse trainer, requested a hearing and a stay of an immediate suspension and proposed order of suspension issued by the Executive Director of the Ontario Racing Commission.

The suspension was based on allegations of acting as a hidden trainer.

The panel denied the request for a stay of the immediate suspension, finding that the public perception and available evidence justified maintaining the suspension pending the hearing.

The panel scheduled the hearing on the merits for July 2014 and declined to impose mandatory time limits on disclosure.

The appellant, a standardbred racehorse trainer, appealed a penalty imposed after his horse tested positive for a prohibited drug.

The positive test resulted from environmental contamination caused by the horse's groom, who took prescribed medication and frequently urinated in the horse's stall.

The Ontario Racing Commission found that the appellant established a defence of due diligence, as he took reasonable care and could not have reasonably foreseen the contamination.

The appeal was allowed in part; the $2,000 fine and two-year probation were maintained, but the six-month suspension was deleted.

The appellant, a licensed driver, trainer, and owner, appealed rulings imposing a suspension, fine, and probation after his horse tested positive for an excess level of total carbon dioxide (TC02).

The parties presented an Agreed Statement of Facts and a Joint Submission on Disposition.

The Ontario Racing Commission accepted the joint submission, ordering a 45-day suspension (already served), a $2,500 fine ($1,000 stayed), and two years of probation with conditions including random searches and out-of-competition testing.

The appellants, licensed horse trainers, appealed track judges' rulings that froze their purse monies pending an investigation into allegations of a suspended trainer acting as a 'hidden trainer' using their names.

The appellants sought further disclosure, a stay of the rulings, and to appeal the hold on their purses.

The Ontario Racing Commission denied the requests for further disclosure and stays as premature, finding the investigation was timely and full disclosure could compromise it.

The appeals against the hold of purse monies were denied, as the Commission found the freeze was a justifiable intrusion in the public interest to protect the integrity of racing.

The appellant, a horse trainer, appealed a ruling imposing a $2,000 fine, a six-month suspension, and two years' probation following a positive test for a Class 2 prohibited drug in a horse.

The Ontario Racing Commission found that the appellant met the burden of proof to show due diligence on a balance of probabilities.

The panel allowed the appeal in part, deleting the suspension entirely while confirming the $2,000 fine and the two-year probationary period.

The appellant, a harness racing driver, appealed a track judges' ruling that suspended him for three days for interference during a race.

The track judges found that the appellant moved out and interfered with another horse, and was not forced out by the horse inside of him.

The Ontario Racing Commission panel upheld the finding of interference, concluding that the Administration met its burden of proof.

However, considering the appellant's motivation to avoid an accident, his openness, and the fact that he had already lost drives as a consequence, the panel stayed the three-day suspension.

The appellant, a standardbred driver, appealed a judges' ruling that disallowed his claim of foul against another driver during a race.

The appellant alleged the other driver forced his way out, causing the appellant to take evasive action.

The Ontario Racing Commission panel reviewed the video evidence and heard testimony but concluded the appellant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that the original ruling was in error.

The appeal was denied.

The appellant, a horse trainer, appealed a $750 fine and six-month probation period imposed for violating racing rules during a truck and trailer search.

An investigator observed the appellant placing items from his glove box into his pocket and refusing to be searched.

The Ontario Racing Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the penalty was appropriate given the circumstances and the appellant's remorse.

The appellant, a horse trainer, appealed a penalty imposed after a horse she trained tested positive for a prohibited drug (Levamisole).

The appellant argued she acquired the horse shortly before the race and the drug may have been administered by the previous owner.

The Ontario Racing Commission held that the absolute liability trainer responsibility rule applies regardless of when the drug was administered.

The Commission found the appellant failed to establish due diligence because she did not make reasonable inquiries about the horse's history or medical treatment upon acquiring it.

However, considering mitigating factors, the Commission varied the penalty to a $1,500 fine, a one-year suspension (with 11 months stayed), and two years of probation.

The appellant appealed a track judge's ruling that imposed a 3-day driving suspension and placed his horse 5th after it drifted and interfered with another horse.

The appellant argued the drift was caused by geese flying up from the track.

The Ontario Racing Commission found that while the driver may not have been entirely at fault due to the unanticipated geese, the interference rule is one of absolute liability.

The appeal was denied and the horse's 5th place finish was affirmed, but the 3-day driving suspension was stayed.

The applicant, a licensed Racing Official, brought a motion requesting that the Vice Chair of the Ontario Racing Commission recuse himself from hearing an appeal against a Notice of Proposed Order to Refuse to Issue a Licence.

The applicant argued that a reasonable apprehension of bias existed due to the Vice Chair's prior rulings in related matters involving the applicant.

The Vice Chair granted the motion, finding that an objective person would entertain a reasonable apprehension of bias based on the cumulative impact of the necessary findings made in the prior rulings upon the live issues yet to be determined in the appeal.

The appellant, a licensed owner and trainer, appealed a track judges' ruling that found her guilty of a positive test for Acepromazine in a racehorse.

The parties presented an Agreed Statement of Facts and a Joint Submission on Disposition.

The Ontario Racing Commission accepted the joint submission, imposing a 60-day suspension (with 20 days stayed), a $1,500 fine, and two years of probation with conditions.