David Gorman

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 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 appellant, a standardbred licensee, appealed a ruling that suspended her for three days and placed her horse sixth for causing interference during a race.

The Commission heard testimony from the appellant, another driver, and a senior judge.

Finding the evidence to be a matter of conflicting testimony without conclusive video evidence, the Commissioner deferred to the unanimous judgment of the race judges.

The appeal was denied and the suspension upheld.

The appellant, a licensed driver, trainer, and owner, appealed penalties imposed by the Judges for conduct violations after he made obscene gestures towards them in full public view.

The Ontario Racing Commission varied the penalties, upholding the $5,000 fine and the forfeiture of $61,140 in purse monies, but immediately reinstating his owner/trainer licenses.

His driver's license remained suspended pending successful completion of an anger management program.

The appellant, a standardbred licensee, appealed a ruling that downgraded his driving licence to a 'C' category, placed him on probation, and required anger management following an altercation with another licensee.

The Ontario Racing Commission denied the appeal, finding that the downgrade was appropriate to protect the safety of drivers and horses and the integrity of harness racing, given the appellant's record of driving violations.

The appellants, standardbred licensees, failed to appear for their appeal hearing regarding the proposed revocation of their licences.

Their representative and counsel for the Administration agreed to adjourn the hearing to a peremptory date.

The panel granted the adjournment and ordered the appellants to collectively pay $1,000 in costs thrown away due to their failure to attend.

The appellants, a licensed owner and a licensed trainer, appealed Notices of Proposed Orders to suspend their licenses for three years following the death of their horse after a race.

Toxicology testing revealed the presence of Reserpine, a prohibited tranquilizer.

The Ontario Racing Commission found that the drug was administered after the horse was claimed, but could not identify who administered it.

Applying the Trainer Responsibility Rule, the Commission held the trainer of record responsible as the de facto trainer, but allowed the owner's appeal due to a lack of evidence of his complicity.

The trainer's penalty was varied to a one-year suspension and a $5,000 fine, considering his long history in the industry and candour.

The appellant, a standardbred licensee, appealed a 15-day suspension and $1,500 fine imposed for an altercation with another licensee in the grandstand at Kawartha Downs.

The Ontario Racing Commission panel found that the altercation was retaliatory and occurred in a public place, potentially causing security issues.

The panel denied the appeal and upheld the suspension and fine.

The appellant, a standardbred licensee, appealed a decision of the Judges suspending him for 45 days and fining him $1,000 for maltreatment of a horse.

The horse was found with severe welts consistent with whipping.

The Ontario Racing Commission panel applied the balance of probabilities standard of proof and the reasonableness standard of review.

The panel found it reasonable to conclude the appellant caused the welts, given his history of temper and post-race whip use.

The appeal was denied, but the penalty was increased to a 90-day suspension (60 days stayed), a $1,500 fine, and mandatory anger management to serve as a stronger deterrent.

The appellant appealed a ruling suspending his standardbred racing license for failing to honour a judgment in favour of a feed company.

After the appellant failed to appear at the rescheduled hearing, the Ontario Racing Commission dismissed the appeal and confirmed the suspension.

The Commission also ordered the appellant to pay $200 in costs thrown away due to his non-attendance.

The licensee, a thoroughbred trainer, appealed a Stewards' ruling that suspended her for one year and fined her $5,000 after her horse tested positive for caffeine, a Class II drug.

The Ontario Racing Commission panel found no evidence that the caffeine came from an external contaminant or previous exposure to coffee.

However, considering the licensee's good record and lack of intent to gain an unfair advantage, the panel allowed the appeal in part, reducing the suspension to six months and the fine to $2,500.

The licensee, a standardbred owner/trainer/driver, appealed a Notice of Proposed Order to suspend his licence for purchasing unlabelled and unprescribed therapeutic substances from unauthorized distributors.

Following a review of the evidence and a joint submission on penalty, the Ontario Racing Commission rescinded the proposed suspension.

The panel ordered a $1,000 fine and a one-year probation period, during which any further violation would trigger an immediate suspension.

The appellants, the driver and trainer/owner of the standardbred horse Newport Volo, appealed a track judges' ruling that placed the horse from second to third for failing to continuously lose ground when off stride during a race.

The Ontario Racing Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the horse broke from a trot to a pace near the finish line and did not lose ground as strictly required by Rule 22.27(c) of the Rules of Standardbred Racing.

The remnant of the second-place purse monies was ordered distributed to the owner of the third-place horse.

The appellant, a thoroughbred licensee, appealed a Stewards' ruling that suspended him for 5 years and fined him $2,000 for failing to ensure proper care for horses.

The Ontario Racing Commission panel found that the appellant clearly violated the rules by failing to provide basic necessities of care, resulting in extreme and inhumane conditions for the horses.

The panel dismissed the appeal regarding the violations but varied the penalty, staying a portion of the suspension to allow the appellant to be eligible for a groom or hot walker's licence after a short full suspension, while maintaining the 5-year suspension for an owner or trainer's licence.

Hanover Raceway appealed a decision by the Deputy Director approving Grand River Raceway's application to race on Wednesdays during the summer of 2010.

Hanover argued this would negatively impact driver availability.

The Ontario Racing Commission denied the appeal, finding the Deputy Director operated within the applicable policy directive and noting that Hanover could mitigate impacts by moving its own race days or benefiting from a trickle-down effect of driver availability.

Sudbury Downs appealed a Notice of Decision issued by the Deputy Director that declined to approve its application to shut down racing for eight weeks and reallocate race dates within a shortened season.

The Ontario Racing Commission panel heard evidence and submissions from the Administration, Sudbury Downs, and the Northern Horsemen's Association.

The panel denied the appeal, with written reasons to follow.

The applicant raceway appealed a decision by the Deputy Director of the Ontario Racing Commission declining its application to vacate race dates in June and early October and apply them over the winter months.

The Commission allowed the appeal, finding that the applicant had successfully followed Policy Directive No. 3-2007.

The applicant's amended application for 130 race dates in 2010 was approved, noting the support of other regional raceways and the Ontario Harness Horse Association.

Windsor Raceway appealed a decision of the Deputy Director of the Ontario Racing Commission denying its revised 2010 live race date application.

The application proposed 86 race days with 25 race programs carded as doubleheaders, effectively reducing the number of race days.

The Commission had previously issued a moratorium on race date reductions for 2010.

The Panel found the Deputy Director's ruling reasonable, as the proposed change was substantial and violated the intent of the moratorium.

The appeal was denied.

The appellant, a licensed driver/trainer/owner, requested a hearing after a horse he trained tested positive for Darbepoetin-Alpha (Aranesp) during out-of-competition testing.

The Executive Director of the Ontario Racing Commission had proposed a 12-year suspension and a $40,000 fine.

At the hearing, the parties presented a joint resolution agreement.

The Commission accepted the agreement, imposing a 12-year suspension and a reduced fine of $25,000, noting the appellant's lower level of industry involvement compared to previous cases.