Brenda Walker

The appellants, Jeffrey Brooks and Bulletproof Enterprises, appealed an Order of Immediate Suspension and a Notice of Proposed Order.

The Ontario Racing Commission found that Jeffrey Brooks permitted his brother, David Brooks, a suspended and unlicensed person, to exercise extensive and continuing control over the Bulletproof racing operation.

The Commission also found that the appellants displayed financial irresponsibility by failing to pay numerous trade accounts and court judgments.

The appeal was denied.

The Commission imposed a 10-year suspension and a $400,000 fine on Jeffrey Brooks, and ordered the forfeiture of purse funds won by ineligible horses.

Two horse trainers appealed their 15-day suspensions and $1,000 fines after their horses tested positive for the Class IV drug ketoprofen following race victories.

The trainers argued they exercised due diligence by relying on veterinary advice and administering the drug outside the 48-hour guideline.

The Ontario Racing Commission denied the appeals, finding the trainers failed to provide clear, cogent, and compelling evidence to establish due diligence on a balance of probabilities, as expert evidence indicated the drug was likely administered within 48 hours.

However, considering their clean records and mitigating factors, the Commission varied the penalty by staying 10 days of each suspension while maintaining the $1,000 fines.

The appellant, a horse trainer, appealed a ruling by the Ontario Racing Commission Stewards suspending him for 6 months and fining him $5,000 after his horse tested positive for Acepromazine following a race.

The appellant argued a due diligence defence and relied on a split sample retest showing low concentration levels.

The Panel denied the appeal, finding that the appellant failed to follow the CPMA guidelines regarding dosage and frequency, ignored warnings about the drug lingering in the horse's system, and used unlicensed compounded medications.

The Panel upheld the penalty as the minimum under the guidelines for a second offence.

The appellant appealed against a Standardbred Official Ruling to the Ontario Racing Commission.

The Commission dismissed the appeal but granted a two-week extension of the stay to allow the appellant to submit required documents to the Commission for review by the Deputy Director.

The appellant, a licensed standardbred owner and trainer, appealed the penalty imposed after his horse tested positive for furosemide (Lasix) following a race.

The appellant argued that the positive test resulted from a faulty perivascular injection by a veterinary technician, which caused a longer elimination time for the drug.

The Panel found that the appellant demonstrated due diligence, albeit with some limitations, and accepted veterinary evidence supporting the perivascular injection theory.

The appeal was denied, but the penalty was varied by upholding the 7-day suspension while waiving the $500 fine.

Masterfeeds appealed a ruling regarding a positive test for Ractopamine in a horse trained by Robert Earl Barnett.

The Ontario Racing Commission allowed the appeal as it pertained to Masterfeeds, declaring its feed products were not the source of the contamination.

Following a pre-hearing conference, Barnett and the ORC Administration agreed to a joint submission on penalty, resulting in a $5,000 fine ($3,500 stayed) and one year of probation with standard terms.

The applicants, members of the Brooks family and their associated racing stables, brought a motion to quash or stay an Order of Immediate Suspension and a Notice of Proposed Order issued by the Ontario Racing Commission.

The applicants alleged that the Administration's investigation and proceedings constituted an abuse of process due to delay and failure to provide adequate disclosure and particulars.

The Panel dismissed the motion, finding that the Administration had fulfilled its disclosure obligations in a timely manner given the volume and complexity of the investigation, and that adequate particulars had been provided.

The Panel found no abuse of process and directed that the matter proceed expeditiously to a hearing on the merits.

The appellant, a standardbred licensee and trainer, appealed a ruling suspending him for 60 days and fining him $1,500 after his horse tested positive for a high TCO2 level.

The appellant argued that the testing equipment was obsolete, the laboratory and reagents were not federally licensed, and he received inadequate disclosure.

The Ontario Racing Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the testing program was legally established, the laboratory's equipment and procedures were reliable, and adequate disclosure was provided.

The panel upheld the fine and suspension, correcting an error regarding credited time served.

The applicant, a standardbred licensee, appealed a ruling suspending his owner's licence and requested a stay of the suspension pending the disposition of outstanding criminal charges.

The Ontario Racing Commission found that the applicant demonstrated serious financial hardship resulting from his inability to own horses.

The panel concluded that the balance of convenience favoured granting a stay and that it was not contrary to the best interests of racing.

A stay of the owner's suspension was granted for six months, after which the matter would be reassessed.

The licensee appealed a 60-day suspension and $1,500 fine imposed for a TCO2 confirmation in a standardbred horse.

The Ontario Racing Commission varied the penalty, staying the remaining 16 days of the suspension due to the licensee's cooperation and the impact on his livelihood as an owner, trainer, and driver.

The fine and a two-year probation period were confirmed.

Todd Kabel, a licensed jockey, submitted an Application for Reinstatement following a ruling by the Executive Director of the Ontario Racing Commission.

A panel of the ORC convened to hear the application.

Upon considering the exhibits, including a Post Violation Agreement and a joint submission, the panel allowed the conditional reinstatement of Kabel's licence.

The appellant, a standardbred licensee, appealed a one-year suspension imposed for violating rules against misconduct, cruelty, and misleading investigators.

The allegations involved leaving a horse tied in full harness overnight without food or water, and subsequently subjecting it to an abusive training session as retribution for poor racing performance.

The Ontario Racing Commission dismissed the appeal, finding the evidence of mistreatment overwhelming and rejecting the appellant's denials.

The panel upheld the one-year suspension of all licensing privileges (except as a groom) and imposed a two-year probationary period with conditions.

The appellant, a standardbred licensee, appealed three rulings regarding violations of the Rules of Standardbred Racing.

After multiple adjournments due to the appellant's medical condition, a peremptory hearing was scheduled.

The appellant did not attend but was represented by an agent.

The appeal regarding the first violation was withdrawn on consent, and the penalty of a $2,000 fine and a 90-day consecutive suspension was confirmed.

The panel reluctantly granted a further adjournment for the remaining two appeals, setting a peremptory date and ordering $1,000 in costs against the appellant for the delay.

The appellant, a thoroughbred licensee, appealed a six-month suspension issued by the Stewards for an unsatisfactory ride.

At the hearing, the parties presented an Agreed Statement of Facts and Joint Submission on Disposition.

The Ontario Racing Commission accepted the joint submission, finding the appellant breached Rules 15.09.01 and 16.13(d) of the Rules of Thoroughbred Racing.

The appellant was suspended for 30 days and placed on probation for two years, with conditions requiring good behaviour and prohibiting unsportsmanlike conduct.

The licensee appealed a 1-year suspension and $6,000 fine imposed for a Class II positive for Ephedrine.

The Administration of the ORC sought an abridged penalty of 90 days and a $3,000 fine, noting that Ephedrine positives have been treated as Class III.

The Commission allowed the appeal in part, reducing the penalty to a 90-day suspension (with 30 days stayed), a $2,000 fine, and a two-year probation, emphasizing the trainer's responsibility to know the contents of administered products.

The appellant, a standardbred licensee, appealed a ruling that prohibited her from racing horses she owned against horses owned or trained by her partner of 15 years.

The Ontario Racing Commission found that the appellant failed to prove she had an independent business operation from her partner.

The Commission held that allowing them to race against each other without independent operations would be akin to running an undisclosed entry, which is detrimental to the public perception of honesty and integrity in racing.

The appeal was denied.

The standardbred licensee appealed a Director's order of immediate suspension and a Notice of Proposed Order to revoke and suspend his licence for five years.

At the hearing, the Administration advised that it would call no evidence and consented to the ruling.

The Commission Panel ordered that the immediate suspension and Notice of Proposed Order be set aside, and directed that the licensee is eligible to apply to be re-licensed in accordance with section 17 of the Racing Commission Act, 2000.

The appellant, a standardbred licensee, appealed a $500 fine and three-day driving suspension imposed by the Judges for allegedly needlessly allowing a horse to pass on the inside during a race.

The Ontario Racing Commission allowed the appeal, finding that the appellant did not intentionally move to the inside to allow the other horse to pass, and that the appellant's horse was wobbly in the stretch drive, raising safety concerns.

The appellant, a thoroughbred licensee, appealed two riding suspensions issued by the Stewards.

At the hearing, the appellant appeared unrepresented because his counsel was unable to attend.

The Ontario Racing Commission adjourned the hearing to a later date to allow the appellant to be properly represented by counsel.

The appellant jockey appealed a three-day riding suspension imposed by the Stewards for interference during a race at Fort Erie Racetrack.

After reviewing the evidence and race footage, the appellant conceded that he had come in with his mount, causing another jockey to check his horse.

The Ontario Racing Commission denied the appeal and upheld the three-day suspension.