Bernard Brennan

The Director requested a review of a previous Tribunal decision that ordered the return of seized livestock medicines and personal items to Ken Allan, or compensation if they were destroyed.

The Tribunal found that it lacked jurisdiction under the Livestock Medicines Act to award compensation, as its powers are limited to licensing decisions.

Furthermore, because the items were seized pursuant to a search warrant under the Provincial Offences Act, only a justice of the peace or provincial judge has the authority to order their return.

The Tribunal cancelled the previous orders.

The Director requested a review of the Tribunal's prior decision.

Following unsuccessful attempts to develop an agreed statement of facts, the responding party withdrew from participating in the review hearing.

The Tribunal issued a new procedural order establishing a timetable for the delivery of affidavit evidence and written submissions for the written review hearing, while preserving the responding party's right to participate should he reconsider.

The Director requested a pre-hearing conference to argue a motion for summary judgment to revoke two orders made in a previous Tribunal decision regarding the return of seized livestock medicines and personal items.

The Tribunal held that it does not have the statutory authority or inherent jurisdiction to grant summary judgment, as its Rules of Procedure do not contain a provision analogous to Rule 20 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The motion for summary judgment was denied, and the Tribunal issued procedural directions for the review hearing to proceed in writing.

The appellant, a thoroughbred owner and trainer, appealed a decision of the Track Stewards disqualifying his horse from first to ninth place after the jockey used an unapproved riding crop.

The appellant argued that the penalty was disproportionate and that the Stewards were estopped from disqualifying the horse because track officials had allegedly told the jockey to ride with the unapproved crop.

The Ontario Racing Commission denied the appeal, finding that the rule mandates automatic disqualification for using an unapproved crop and that track officials, who are not Commission officials, lack the authority to override the rules.

The appellant, an official clocker, appealed a 30-day suspension imposed by the Stewards for allegedly altering a workout time to make a horse eligible to race.

The Ontario Racing Commission panel found that the appellant corrected a timing error in good faith, consistent with established clocking protocols, and without knowledge of the horse's eligibility requirements.

The panel concluded there was no evidence of an integrity breach or willful wrongdoing.

The appeal was allowed and the suspension rescinded.

The appellant, a licensed veterinarian, appealed an Order of Immediate Suspension and a Notice of Proposed Order suspending his licence for 12 years and imposing a $50,000 fine for prescribing Aranesp (EPO/DPO) to racehorses.

The Ontario Racing Commission found that the appellant breached multiple rules and the Veterinarians Act by prescribing the illegal, non-therapeutic drug without examining the horses or determining if other drugs were being administered.

The Commission denied the appeal but varied the penalty to a 10-year suspension and a $40,000 fine, consistent with the Penalty Guidelines for Equine Drug Offences.

The Standardbred licensee appealed an Order of Immediate Suspension and Notice of Proposed Order suspending his license for 10 years and fining him $40,000 after one of his horses tested positive for Darbepoetin-alpha (DPO).

The appellant challenged the scientific and forensic validity of the testing methodology used by the Pennsylvania Equine Toxicology & Research Laboratory (PETRL).

The Ontario Racing Commission panel found the PETRL methodology to be scientifically and forensically valid, confirmed the 10-year suspension, and increased the fine to $60,000 due to the horse's high racing status and earnings.

The Ontario Harness Horse Association (OHHA) requested a hearing regarding the actions of Woodbine Entertainment Group (WEG) and the Central Ontario Standardbred Association (COSA).

WEG brought a motion arguing that the Ontario Racing Commission lacked jurisdiction to hear the matter.

The Panel granted WEG's motion, finding that the Commission had no jurisdiction, and dismissed OHHA's application.

The appellant, a standardbred licensee and trainer, appealed a ruling that placed his horse from first to last after the driver drove with both lines in one hand and struck the horse with the whip.

The Ontario Racing Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the driver violated the newly implemented urging rules.

The Commission held that the offence was one of absolute liability and that the mandatory penalty of placing the horse last under Policy Directive No. 2-2009 must be applied, despite the violation being inadvertent and the severe financial consequences to the owner.

The appellant, a standardbred driver, appealed a $100 fine for failing to keep his feet in the stirrups during a race, contrary to Rule 22.19 of the Rules of Standardbred Racing.

The Ontario Racing Commission panel reviewed the video evidence, which clearly showed the appellant's foot out of the stirrup and hitting the horse's hock.

The panel dismissed the appeal, finding that the rule's intent is to ensure safety and prevent drivers from using their feet to strike the horse.

As the appellant offered no new evidence after three hearings, the panel deemed the appeal frivolous and ordered him to pay $750 pursuant to subsection 11(8) of the Racing Commission Act.

The licensee appealed the penalty imposed by the track stewards for possessing hypodermic syringes, needles, and injectables contrary to the Rules of Thoroughbred Racing.

The stewards had originally imposed a two-year suspension and a $2,500 fine.

The Ontario Racing Commission panel accepted an agreed statement of facts concluding the licensee was not practicing veterinary medicine without a license.

Consequently, the panel reduced the penalty to a 60-day suspension and a $1,000 fine, distinguishing the case from a similar precedent based on the quantity and nature of the medications possessed.

The appellant, a licensed jockey, appealed a 5-day suspension imposed by the Stewards for whipping his mount on the head and raising the whip above his shoulder during a race.

The appellant conceded the violations but argued the penalty was excessive compared to previous rulings.

The Ontario Racing Commission dismissed the appeal, finding the conduct to be inherently wrong and a flagrant abuse of the horse.

The Commission emphasized its mandate to protect animal welfare and confirmed the 5-day suspension, noting it was arguably too lenient but could not be increased without notice.

The appellant, a thoroughbred trainer, appealed a Stewards' Ruling suspending him for 15 days and imposing a $1,000 fine after his horse tested positive for Methocarbamol (Robaxin).

The appellant argued that the positive test resulted from a mistake by veterinary technicians who administered the wrong medication.

The Ontario Racing Commission denied the appeal, finding that the appellant failed to establish due diligence under the strict liability trainer responsibility rule, as he was not present during the administration of medications and did not ensure his instructions were followed.

The suspension was reduced to eight days in recognition of his excellent past record, with the remaining seven days stayed.

The appellant, a thoroughbred trainer, appealed a Stewards' decision suspending him for one year and fining him $5,000 after his horse tested positive for codeine and morphine, both Class I drugs.

The appellant argued the positive test resulted from environmental contamination, specifically poppy seeds or human source contamination.

The Commission rejected this defense, finding it could not account for the presence of codeine and that the appellant failed to meet the strict liability standard of taking all reasonable care to protect the horse.

The appeal was denied, but the Commission stayed the last two months of the 12-month suspension in recognition of the appellant's previous good record.

A thoroughbred jockey appealed a Stewards' ruling that suspended him for three days and disqualified his horse from first place due to alleged interference.

The Industry Appeal Board reversed the suspension but left the disqualification undisturbed.

On a de novo hearing before the Ontario Racing Commission, the Panel found that the jockey did not breach any racing rules and that the interference was caused by another jockey's dangerous attempt to pass on the inside going into a turn.

The Panel allowed the appeal and ordered the original order of finish restored.

The appellants, a standardbred driver/trainer and an owner/trainer, appealed a decision suspending them for one year and imposing fines for tubing horses prior to races.

The Ontario Racing Commission heard evidence from eyewitnesses and an expert veterinarian who testified that tubing by non-veterinarians is dangerous and used to administer performance-enhancing alkalizing agents.

The Commission found clear and convincing evidence that the appellants tubed horses on race days, concluding that such actions are prejudicial to the integrity of racing and a threat to the health of the horses.

The appeals were dismissed and the penalties upheld.

The licensee appealed two Stewards' rulings: a $50 fine for smoking in a non-designated area and a 15-day suspension for using profanities and acting obnoxiously at a hearing.

The Ontario Racing Commission dismissed the appeals, finding the licensee admitted to the inappropriate behaviour and that witness testimony supported the smoking violation.

The Commission upheld the penalties and strongly recommended the licensee seek anger management treatment.

The appellant, a standardbred licensee, appealed the penalty of a 60-day suspension and $1,500 fine imposed after a horse he trained tested positive for an elevated TCO2 level.

The appellant argued for a reduced penalty based on his good character, the likelihood of a feeding error due to his busy stable, and precedents where lesser penalties were given.

The Ontario Racing Commission dismissed the appeal, emphasizing that the public interest and the integrity of racing require strict adherence to the trainer responsibility rules and uniform enforcement of minimum penalty guidelines.

The appellant, a thoroughbred licensee, appealed a Stewards' ruling that suspended him for three days and disqualified his mount from first position.

The Industry Appeal Board previously allowed his appeal regarding the suspension but did not address the disqualification.

At the Ontario Racing Commission hearing to address the order of finish, it was noted that the owner of the horse placed first after the disqualification was not given proper notice of the hearing regarding the order of finish.

The Commission adjourned the matter sine die to allow for proper service and the opportunity for all interested parties to be heard.

The appellant harness horse association appealed the Executive Director's allocation of 2008 race dates for two raceways.

The administration challenged the panel's jurisdiction, arguing the appellant missed the 48-hour deadline to file a notice of appeal.

The panel found it had jurisdiction to hear the appeals to ensure transparency in the new race date allocation process, despite the missed deadline.

On the merits, the panel dismissed the appeals, finding the Executive Director properly followed the policy directive in allocating the race dates.