Elmer Buchanan

The appellant, a thoroughbred racehorse trainer, appealed a positive test result and penalties imposed by the Stewards after his horse tested positive for Levamisole and Pemoline.

The appellant had administered a compounded medication containing Levamisole on the advice of his veterinarian for a legitimate therapeutic purpose, adhering to the recommended withdrawal time.

The Ontario Racing Commission panel found that while the positive test was proven as an absolute liability offence and a waiver of the breach was not appropriate, the appellant had established due diligence.

Considering the mitigating factors, including the appellant's excellent reputation and lack of intent to gain an unfair advantage, the panel allowed the appeal in part, reducing the penalty to a $1,000 fine and setting aside the suspension.

The appellant, a standardbred horse trainer, appealed penalties imposed after a horse he trained tested positive for Minoxidil, a Class III drug.

The drug was traced to the horse's owner, who used Rogaine and frequently interacted with the horse.

The panel found the appellant established due diligence, as the contamination was accidental and not readily discoverable.

Consequently, the panel reduced the penalty to a non-oppressive $300 fine and set aside the suspension.

However, the panel declined to waive the absolute liability rule breach, finding no exceptional circumstances to justify doing so.

The appellant, a licensed horse trainer, appealed penalties imposed after two of her horses tested positive for Levamisole and cocaine metabolites.

The Ontario Racing Commission found that the appellant failed to exercise due diligence prior to the first positive test, noting lax stable management and missing drug labels.

The panel allowed the appeal in part, reducing the fines to $1,500, imposing a full suspension until July 1, 2016, and ordering two years of probation upon the renewal of her licence.

The appellant appealed a penalty imposed for a positive test in a horse racing matter.

During the hearing, the Ontario Racing Commission panel adjourned the matter to April 13 and 15, 2016, due to timing issues.

The panel extended the stay of the appellant's penalty until April 16, 2016, noting that if successful on a due diligence defence, the appellant would be entitled to no suspension and a non-oppressive fine.

The continuation of the hearing was marked peremptory upon the appellant.

The Appellants, a Thoroughbred Licensee and a Quarter Horse Licensee, appealed against rulings of the Ontario Racing Commission.

Following a hearing, the Commission ordered that the purse funds would not be paid to the Appellants but would be redistributed.

The Appellants were directed to return any held purse funds to the respective racetrack for redistribution, failing which they would not be licensed by the Commission.

Two horse trainers appealed suspensions and fines imposed after their horses tested positive for trace amounts of methamphetamine.

The Ontario Racing Commission heard expert evidence that the extremely low levels of the drug were the result of environmental contamination, not administration, and would not enhance performance.

The Commission waived the absolute liability rule for positive tests, finding that penalizing the trainers for unavoidable environmental contamination would be unjust and contrary to the public interest.

The appeals were allowed and the penalties set aside.

The appellant, a licensed thoroughbred horse trainer, appealed a Stewards' decision imposing a 60-day suspension and a $1,500 fine after his horse tested positive for excessive TCO2 levels.

The appellant argued that his Charter rights were breached and that he was denied procedural fairness because of a delay in releasing the residue blood sample for independent ion concentration testing, which he claimed could have exonerated him.

The Ontario Racing Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the economic sanctions did not engage Section 7 of the Charter.

The Commission also held that the delay in releasing the sample was not inordinate or oppressive, and the appellant was not significantly prejudiced, as the sample ultimately lacked sufficient plasma for the requested test.

The Stewards' penalty was affirmed.

The appellant trainer appealed a nine-month suspension and $5,000 fine imposed after his horse tested positive for Oxycodone.

The official sample consisted of three blood vials.

While one vial tested positive for trace amounts of the drug, the other two vials tested negative.

The panel accepted expert evidence that it is physiologically impossible for a continuous blood draw to distribute a drug into only one vial, concluding the single positive vial must have been contaminated.

The appeal was allowed and the penalties were set aside.

The appellant, a horse trainer, appealed a 5-year suspension and $20,000 fine imposed after two of his horses tested positive for aminorex.

The Ontario Racing Commission Panel found that while the absolute liability rule for positive tests prevailed, the appellant had exercised due diligence and no causal link or source for the aminorex could be established.

Consequently, the Panel allowed the motion to vary the penalty, setting aside the suspension and eliminating the fine in its entirety, while placing the appellant on probation for six months to permit ongoing investigations and out-of-competition testing.

The appellant appealed a decision by horse racing Judges denying trainer transfer applications for six racehorses.

The Ontario Racing Commission allowed the appeal, finding that the Judges lacked the authority under Rule 26.08 of the Rules of Standardbred Racing to deny the applications.

The Commission held that the two conditions precedent for denying a transfer—that the trainer must be suspended and the horse must be trained by him or under his care—did not co-exist at the same time.

The appellant appealed a ruling by horse racing judges that prohibited him from entering the restricted area of an association.

The Ontario Racing Commission panel determined that while judges do have the authority to expel properly signed-in guests from restricted areas under the Rules of Standardbred Racing, the specific ruling against the appellant was not fair and reasonable.

The Administration failed to meet its burden of proof on a balance of probabilities.

The appeal was allowed, with full reasons to follow.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Stewards disallowing a claim of foul in the Northern Dancer Stakes horse race.

The appellant sought to have the winning horse disqualified for interference and placed behind the appellant's horse.

The Ontario Racing Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that while interference did occur, it did not alter the finish of the race or improve the placing of the offending horse.

The licensee, a standardbred racehorse trainer, appealed a Proposed Order by the Director of the Ontario Racing Commission alleging he participated in racing while his licence was suspended.

The Commission found that despite transferring his horses to another trainer, the licensee maintained significant involvement in their care, banking, and sale, and had extensive contact with the new stable staff.

The Commission concluded the licensee participated directly or indirectly in racing while suspended, violating Rule 6.10.01.

The Director's application was granted, and the licensee was suspended for over nine months and fined $5,000.

The Director of the Ontario Racing Commission applied for a declaration that the licensee participated in racing while his licence was under suspension.

The panel granted the application, finding a violation of Rule 6.10.01 of the Rules of Standardbred Racing.

The licensee was suspended for nine months and five days and fined $5,000.

Gabriella Sasso and Ronald Adams appealed Notices of Proposed Orders of Suspension and fines issued by the Director for violating 'hidden trainer' rules by associating with a suspended trainer.

The Ontario Racing Commission panel found clear, cogent, and compelling evidence that the suspended trainer was improperly involved in their business.

However, the panel concluded the proposed penalties were too severe, as the appellants had been taken advantage of by the suspended trainer.

The panel allowed the appeal in part, reducing Sasso's suspension to six months and fine to $2,000, and Adams's suspension to eight months and fine to $5,000.

The panel also ordered the release of frozen purse monies to the owners and drivers.

Lyle MacArthur appealed against standardbred track judges' rulings imposing a 60-day suspension, a $1,500 fine, and two years' probation after his horse tested positive for a TCO2 overage.

The parties presented a joint submission indicating that an interaction between two permitted therapeutic substances was a causal factor in the overage.

The Ontario Racing Commission accepted the joint submission and varied the penalty by staying 15 days of the 60-day suspension.

The appellant, a licensed standardbred trainer, appealed an immediate suspension and a proposed order of a two-year suspension and $15,000 fine issued by the Director of the Ontario Racing Commission.

The Administration alleged that the appellant continued to participate in racing as a shadow or hidden trainer through a former employee while his licence was suspended.

The panel found that the Administration failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that the appellant acted as a shadow trainer.

The immediate suspension was vacated and the notice of proposed order was dismissed.

The appellant, a licensed horse trainer, requested a hearing and a stay of an immediate suspension and proposed order of suspension issued by the Executive Director of the Ontario Racing Commission.

The suspension was based on allegations of acting as a hidden trainer.

The panel denied the request for a stay of the immediate suspension, finding that the public perception and available evidence justified maintaining the suspension pending the hearing.

The panel scheduled the hearing on the merits for July 2014 and declined to impose mandatory time limits on disclosure.

The appellant, a standardbred racehorse trainer, appealed a penalty imposed after his horse tested positive for a prohibited drug.

The positive test resulted from environmental contamination caused by the horse's groom, who took prescribed medication and frequently urinated in the horse's stall.

The Ontario Racing Commission found that the appellant established a defence of due diligence, as he took reasonable care and could not have reasonably foreseen the contamination.

The appeal was allowed in part; the $2,000 fine and two-year probation were maintained, but the six-month suspension was deleted.

The appellant, a licensed driver, trainer, and owner, appealed rulings imposing a suspension, fine, and probation after his horse tested positive for an excess level of total carbon dioxide (TC02).

The parties presented an Agreed Statement of Facts and a Joint Submission on Disposition.

The Ontario Racing Commission accepted the joint submission, ordering a 45-day suspension (already served), a $2,500 fine ($1,000 stayed), and two years of probation with conditions including random searches and out-of-competition testing.