David Gorman

The appellant, a standardbred trainer, appealed a ruling prohibiting him from participating in racing in Ontario based on a reciprocal enforcement of a ban in Virginia and a licence revocation in Massachusetts.

The appellant had failed to disclose these foreign penalties on his Ontario licence applications.

The Ontario Racing Commission rescinded the reciprocal enforcement order due to concerns about procedural fairness in the foreign jurisdiction, but accepted a joint submission cancelling the appellant's trainer's licence and granting him a conditional tradesman's licence as a farrier due to his failure to disclose the foreign penalties.

The appellant, a standardbred licensee, appealed a Notice of Proposed Order to revoke his licence.

A due diligence investigation revealed that the appellant had failed to disclose his criminal record, including convictions for fraud and impaired driving, and numerous driving suspensions on his licence applications over a ten-year period.

The Ontario Racing Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the Director had reasonable grounds to conclude the appellant would not act with honesty, integrity, or in the public interest.

The appellant's licence was revoked, with the condition that he may reapply in two years or upon proving he has satisfied his outstanding financial obligations.

Sudbury Downs appealed a ruling by the Judges requiring the track to provide and maintain bedding for ship-in stalls at no cost to horsepersons, and to keep horses from the same stable together.

The Ontario Racing Commission upheld the requirement to provide bedding, finding it to be a basic animal husbandry requirement and within the Judges' authority to protect the health and welfare of horses in the public interest.

The Commission ordered the track to provide bedding until its current contract with the Northern Horsemen's Association expires, after which costs are to be resolved between the parties.

The appeal regarding stall assignments was upheld, conditional on the track's ongoing commitment to offer convenience to horsepersons.

Rideau Carleton Raceway appealed a $5,000 fine imposed by the Judges for failing to have the racing strip suitably prepared for racing, which caused the cancellation of races due to unsafe, dusty conditions.

The Ontario Racing Commission panel dismissed the appeal, finding clear evidence that the track was not race-ready and that the track superintendent failed to comply with an order to provide weekly reports.

The panel upheld the fine and ordered the track's surface committee to meet weekly with mandatory reporting.

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 licensed driver/trainer, appealed a $300 fine for indiscriminate use of the whip during a race.

He argued that placing the whip between the horse's back legs was not indiscriminate and that he was unaware of the specific rule interpretation.

The Ontario Racing Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that ignorance of the rules is not a defence and that the rule clearly prohibits such conduct.

The Commission reinstated the $300 fine and imposed an additional $100 fine for a frivolous appeal.

The appellant, owner of the horse MIA D'COUGAR, appealed a Stewards' ruling that disqualified the horse from first place and placed it fifth for interfering with another horse during a race.

The Ontario Racing Commission panel reviewed the video evidence and testimony, finding clear and compelling evidence that MIA D'COUGAR cut into the other horse's racing lane without clearing, causing the other jockey to check his mount.

The panel upheld the disqualification and placement under the Rules of Thoroughbred Racing.

The Administration's request for costs on the basis of a frivolous appeal was denied.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Stewards denying a protest over a horse claim.

The appellant argued that the claim form was invalid because the claimant failed to delete the suffix 'st' when correcting the race number from '1' to '2'.

The Ontario Racing Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the intent to claim from the second race was clear and the error was merely technical, not substantive.

The appellant jockey appealed a three-day suspension and horse disqualification issued by the Stewards for causing interference during a thoroughbred race.

The Ontario Racing Commission panel heard testimony from the Stewards and other jockeys, and concluded that the appellant was not clear when he moved his horse, thereby causing the interference.

The appeal was denied and the suspension upheld.

The appellant appealed a Standardbred Official Ruling that fined him $1,000 and placed him on a one-year probation for violating the Rules of Standardbred Racing.

The Ontario Racing Commission panel denied the appeal, upholding the fine and probation.

Additionally, the panel imposed a further $1,000 penalty on the appellant for bringing a frivolous appeal, noting that he had agreed to the facts and offered no clear, compelling, or cogent explanation for his actions.

The appellant, a standardbred licensee, appealed the 90-day suspension of his horses following positive tests for Darbepoetin-Alpha (EPO).

He did not appeal his own 10-year suspension and $40,000 fine, but sought to have the horses' suspension period truncated to allow for their immediate sale.

The Ontario Racing Commission found that while it had the authority to waive or abridge the suspension under Rule 1.09, doing so would be prejudicial to the best interests of racing.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant, a licensed driver, appealed a 60-day driving suspension and the placing of his horse from second to sixth for a driving violation during a harness race.

The judges found he committed interference by putting a wheel under another horse for a sustained period.

The Ontario Racing Commission dismissed the appeal regarding the violation and the placing of the horse, finding overwhelming evidence of deliberate and dangerous careless driving.

However, the Commission reduced the driving suspension from 60 days to 30 days because the original penalty was based on a duplicated entry in the appellant's driving record.

The appellant, a licensed exercise person, appealed a 49-day suspension and $150 fine for a third offence of smoking in a non-designated area at Fort Erie Racetrack.

The appellant failed to attend the de novo hearing before the Ontario Racing Commission despite being properly served and failing to submit a written request for an adjournment.

The Commission proceeded in his absence, dismissed the appeal, increased the suspension to 60 days due to his wanton disregard for safety rules, and imposed an additional $1,500 fine for a frivolous appeal.

The appellant, a standardbred licensee, appealed a Judges' Ruling that suspended him for ten days and fined him $500 for using offensive language and engaging in improper conduct towards racing officials.

During a meeting, the appellant became angry, tore up a Notice of Hearing, threw the pieces at a judge, and physically shoved another judge.

The Ontario Racing Commission denied the appeal, finding the appellant's admissions and the officials' testimony clearly established the violations of the rules of racing.

The appellants appealed rulings fining them $1,200 each for racing a claimed horse out of province within 60 days of claiming, contrary to Rule 15.09(a) of the Rules of Standardbred Racing.

The Ontario Racing Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellants willfully violated the rule by racing the horse in the Gold Cup and Saucer Final after being informed of the rule and potential fines.

The Commission confirmed the fines, noting that the initial fine for the elimination race was appropriately reduced due to misleading information, but the premeditated breach for the final race warranted the full penalty.

The appellant, a standardbred licensee, appealed a Judges' Ruling that fined him $1,500 and suspended him for ten days after his horse tested positive for the Class V drug Procaine.

The Ontario Racing Commission denied the appeal, finding the penalty appropriate and consistent with the penalty guidelines for equine drug offenses.

The fine and suspension were upheld.

The appellant, a standardbred licensee, appealed penalties imposed for his driving actions.

At the hearing, his counsel sought an adjournment due to alleged incomplete disclosure and the appellant being out of the country.

The Ontario Racing Commission granted the adjournment to allow the appellant to attend, but ruled that the Administration had satisfied its disclosure obligations.

The Commission directed that the hearing be rescheduled for January and ordered that the stay of penalty would terminate if the matter did not proceed on that date.

The appellant, a thoroughbred trainer, appealed the decision of the Ontario Racing Commission Industry Appeal Board disallowing a claim of foul.

The claim alleged interference between two horses during a race.

Based on new, unchallenged testimony showing contact occurred before the finish line, the Panel allowed the appeal in part and ordered the Stewards to conduct a new hearing to determine if the contact had a material impact on the race's outcome.

The appellant, a thoroughbred licensee, appealed a Notice of Proposed Order by the Director refusing him a licence and prohibiting re-application for two years.

The Ontario Racing Commission denied the appeal, finding that the appellant had an unaddressed substance abuse problem and had not provided evidence of seeking professional help.

The Commission refused the licence but allowed the appellant to re-apply in March 2010, subject to strict conditions including proof of successful completion of a substance abuse program and good behaviour.

Standardbred driver Michael Vanderkemp appealed a judges' decision that another horse did not interfere with his horse during a race at Woodbine Racetrack.

The Ontario Racing Commission dismissed the appeal, finding no clear and convincing evidence of a foul and upholding the judges' original decision to leave the order of finish intact.