Garthson

The appellants, a jockey and a trainer, appealed a ruling that suspended the jockey for three days and disqualified their horse from first to sixth place in a major stakes race due to alleged interference.

The stewards had concluded that the jockey jerked his horse into the path of another, causing it to clip heels and stumble.

Upon reviewing the video evidence and hearing testimony from the riders and an expert witness, the panel found that the video was inconclusive and that the other horse had actually run up on the field after a poor start.

The panel concluded that the appellant jockey maintained his lane and did not cause the interference.

The appeal was allowed, the suspension was rescinded, and the horse's first-place finish was restored.

The appellant, a standardbred driver, appealed rulings suspending him for 100 days and downgrading his license for careless driving and interference.

The Ontario Racing Commission Panel found that the appellant created dangerous situations and lacked driving skills.

The Panel varied the penalty, staying the remaining 20 days of the suspension subject to conditions, placing his license on probation for 24 months, and quashing the license downgrade.

The applicant requested a hearing into the Director's Notice of Proposed Order to refuse his application to renew his licence as a Clocker.

During the hearing, the applicant withdrew his request.

The Director subsequently ordered that the application be refused.

The Commission also heard evidence that the applicant's summonsed witnesses were informed they would not be paid attendance money as required by the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

The Commission directed that if the applicant ever reapplies for a licence after the minimum two-year prohibition period, his licence will remain indefinitely suspended until he pays the witness attendance money owed in full.

The appellants, a standardbred owner/trainer and an owner/groom, appealed decisions of the Judges fining and suspending them for allegedly refusing to comply with directions, withholding information, and misleading investigators regarding the transfer of horses from a suspended trainer.

The Ontario Racing Commission allowed the appeal in part, finding that the Judges' directions were equivocal and the appellants did not knowingly withhold information.

However, the Commission upheld the finding that the appellants misled investigators by participating in a deceptive 'farming out' arrangement.

The fines and suspensions were reduced, and a related suspension of four horses was modified to allow their transfer to the appellants after a specified date.