Dan Nixon

Hiawatha Horse Park appealed a Director's Notice of Order regarding a substantial underpayment to its purse account.

The Ontario Racing Commission denied the appeal, finding that the track violated Standardbred Rule 7.16.02 by failing to remit funds legally due to the horse people.

The panel determined the underpayment amount to be $677,000.00 and upheld the original $5,000.00 fine.

Additionally, the panel imposed a $1,500.00 fine on the appellant for filing a frivolous appeal, noting the lack of preparation and evidence.

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.

The appellant, a standardbred licensee, appealed the penalty portion of a ruling that fined him $2,000 and suspended him for 7 months after a search of his stable revealed unlabeled medications, medications acquired without a prescription, and loaded syringes including one containing lidocaine.

The appellant requested a variance to reduce the suspension time in exchange for an increased fine.

The Ontario Racing Commission denied the appeal, finding the original penalty reasonable given the seriousness of the multiple rule violations and the aggravating factors, including the appellant's lack of cooperation and the presence of a Class II drug.

The appellant, a standardbred licensee and trainer, appealed a 270-day suspension and $3,000 fine issued after his horse tested positive for the Class II drug Aminorex.

The appellant did not contest the positive test but argued he exercised due diligence.

The Ontario Racing Commission found that the appellant met the standard of reasonable care on a balance of probabilities, noting his security measures, use of a licensed veterinarian, and cooperation.

The appeal was denied, but the penalty was varied: the remaining suspension and fine were stayed, while a two-year probation order continued.

The appellant, a licensed standardbred trainer, appealed a $5,000 fine and 365-day suspension imposed after a horse he trained tested positive for caffeine post-race.

The appellant argued that he relied on veterinary advice and that the trainer responsibility rule should be treated as a strict liability offence, allowing for a due diligence defence.

The Ontario Racing Commission dismissed the appeal, holding that the trainer responsibility rule is an absolute liability offence necessary to protect the integrity of racing.

Furthermore, the Commission found that even if strict liability applied, the appellant failed to establish due diligence due to gaps in evidence regarding the horse's care and security prior to the race.

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.

Four licensed horse trainers appealed rulings by the Stewards that imposed 15-day suspensions, $1,000 fines, and purse redistributions for violations of the Rules of Thoroughbred Racing.

Following a pre-hearing conference, the parties presented a joint submission on disposition.

The Ontario Racing Commission accepted the joint submission, ordering each appellant to pay a reduced fine of $900, while confirming the unplacing of the horses and the purse redistributions.

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 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.

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 a ruling by the Sudbury Judges suspending him for 45 days and imposing a $1,000 fine for inappropriately whipping and injuring a horse.

Following a judicial review that remitted the matter for a new hearing, the Ontario Racing Commission held a trial de novo.

The Commission found clear and convincing circumstantial evidence that the appellant inflicted severe welts on the horse with a whip.

The appeal was denied, and the penalty was increased to a 90-day full suspension, a $1,000 fine, two years of probation, and mandatory anger management.

The Ontario Harness Horse Association (OHHA) appealed a ruling by the Executive Director of the Ontario Racing Commission ordering it to pay $100,000 for investigation costs.

The costs were imposed as a condition for the issuance of a 2005 Purse Account Manager's Licence.

The Panel allowed the appeal, finding that while the costs were reasonable, OHHA never consented to the terms of the 2005 licence.

Because OHHA did not accept the terms, the licence was never issued, and the ORC's claim for the $100,000 in costs ended.

The appellant appealed the Ontario Racing Commission's 2012 schedule of race dates for Sudbury Downs, requesting that three race dates in November be moved to December.

The panel denied the appeal, finding that the requested changes were not supported by horse supply or customer demand, and that the original dates were assigned in accordance with the principles of the Ontario Racing Program.

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 appellant jockey appealed a Stewards' ruling suspending him for two years for possessing an electrical device in the starting gate during a quarter horse race.

The horse reacted violently in the gate, and an electrical device was subsequently found on the track in the exact location of the appellant's stall.

Although there was no direct evidence of possession, the Ontario Racing Commission found that the overwhelming circumstantial evidence established the violation on a balance of probabilities.

The appeal was dismissed, and the penalty was varied to a five-year suspension with three years stayed, resulting in a net two-year suspension.

The appellant, a standardbred licensee and trainer, appealed the penalty imposed for a positive test of the Class II drug Lidocaine in his horse.

The Judges had imposed a two-year suspension (with 180 days stayed) and a $5,000 fine.

The appellant argued he relied on veterinary advice after accidentally exposing the horse to a topical spray containing Lidocaine.

The Ontario Racing Commission varied the penalty, extending the stay of the suspension to one year, noting the appellant's reliance on his veterinarian's advice as a mitigating factor, but upheld the $5,000 fine and imposed a two-year probation due to his poor licensing history and inadequate stable practices.

The applicant sought clarification on the expiration date of a five-year suspension imposed by the Ontario Racing Commission.

The applicant argued the suspension should run from the date of the initial immediate suspension, while the Commission argued it should run from the date of the panel's decision.

The panel determined that the penalty commenced when it was imposed, as no credit for pre-hearing suspension time was explicitly granted in the original decision.

The suspension was ordered to expire on April 30, 2011.

The appellant, owner of the second-place horse, appealed a decision of the Ontario Racing Commission Judges who found no violations requiring a placing after the winning horse broke stride at the start and its driver allegedly violated the whipping rule near the finish.

The Commission panel dismissed the appeal, finding that the Judges correctly interpreted and applied the rules of racing.

The driver of the winning horse lost ground while on the break and did not strike the horse with the whip when he raised it in celebration.