George Kelly

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, 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 appellant, a standardbred owner and trainer, appealed a Judges' Ruling that declared his horse ineligible for three races and ordered the return of purse money.

The horse had been transferred to a new trainer after the original trainer was suspended, but the appellant subsequently transferred the horse again without obtaining the required Judges' approval.

The Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the Judges had the authority to impose conditions on trainer transfers, the appellant was bound by the transfer agreement he signed, and there were no grounds to waive the breach as it would unfairly prejudice other competitors.

The applicants, standardbred horse owners, appealed a decision by Woodbine Entertainment Group (WEG) to indefinitely deny their horses entry into races at WEG facilities.

The suspension followed a positive test for EPO in another horse trained by the same trainer, William Elliott.

The Ontario Racing Commission determined it had jurisdiction to hear the appeal and found that WEG's unilateral rejection of the entries lacked procedural fairness and was based on suspicion rather than evidence of wrongdoing by the applicants.

The Commission ordered that WEG is prohibited from rejecting the applicants' eligible horse entries on a permanent basis.

The applicant, a licensed exercise person, appealed a trespass notice issued by Woodbine Entertainment Group (WEG) that excluded him from its premises following a personal dispute on the backstretch.

The applicant sought to void the exclusion and claimed $25,000 in damages.

The Ontario Racing Commission determined it lacked jurisdiction to hear the matter, as the dispute did not primarily relate to racing or the good of horse racing generally, failing to meet the criteria established in the Sudbury Downs case.

The application was dismissed.

The Northern Horsemen's Association appealed a decision by the Executive Director allowing Sudbury Downs to cancel a makeup race date scheduled for December 12, 2007.

The cancellation was conditionally approved based on benchmarks regarding field sizes and race backs.

The Ontario Racing Commission Panel found that Sudbury Downs had historically raced short fields and that the late posting of condition sheets likely caused a shortage of entries.

The Panel granted the appeal and ordered Sudbury Downs to hold a full card of racing on December 22, 2007, with supervisory conditions.

The appellant requested a hearing before the Ontario Racing Commission regarding the Director's Notice of Proposed Order to Refuse a Licence.

The Commission affirmed the Director's decision, noting that a licence is a privilege, not a right.

Given the appellant's pending criminal charges and financial obligations, the Director had no choice but to refuse the application.

The Commission noted the appellant could reapply once his difficulties are cleared up and he can demonstrate he will act in accordance with the law, with integrity, honesty, and in the public interest.

The appellant, a licensed thoroughbred trainer, appealed a $2,000 fine imposed for refusing to allow his horse to be administered Lasix, which resulted in the horse being scratched from a race.

The horse had been forced to race on an off-turf track due to weather conditions, and the appellant refused to race the horse due to safety concerns.

The Ontario Racing Commission allowed the appeal, finding that the appellant's safety concerns were reasonable and provided 'reasonable justification' under the rules for refusing the Lasix administration.

The fine was rescinded.

The Ontario Racing Commission convened an emergency hearing after live race dates were cancelled at Woodstock and Dresden Raceways due to a lack of entered horses.

The Commission ordered a trial experiment for a mini circuit in Southwestern Ontario, allocating 27 live race dates to Woodstock and 25 to Dresden.

The Commission also ordered Winrac Development Inc. to provide independent assurances that the Woodstock facility meets health and safety standards or to detail mitigating steps.

The appellant, a standardbred owner and trainer, appealed the penalty imposed for four positive tests for the Class III drug Torsemide in her horses.

The parties agreed to drop one of the charges due to a discrepancy in the certificate of analysis.

The Commission upheld the decision to treat the remaining three positive tests as a single first offence, given they occurred before the appellant was notified of the first positive result.

The penalty was varied to a $3,000 fine and a nine-month suspension to reflect the dropped charge.

The appellant, a standardbred licensee, appealed the penalty imposed for a positive drug test (Torsemide) on a horse he trained.

The appellant had relied on the advice of an unlicensed veterinarian who prescribed the medication without realizing it was a banned substance.

The Commission found that the appellant lacked any intentional wrongdoing and that the veterinarian accepted full responsibility.

The Commission allowed the appeal in part, reducing the 60-day suspension to time already served, but maintained the $1,500 fine.

The applicant, a standardbred owner, sought an interim stay of a suspension imposed by Woodbine Entertainment Group (WEG) after his horses tested positive for EPO, a performance-enhancing drug.

The suspension prevented him from nominating horses for WEG stakes races.

The Ontario Racing Commission denied the interim relief, finding that while there was a serious issue to be tried, the applicant failed to establish irreparable harm, as the harm was a result of his own business decision to retain the horses despite the suspension.

The balance of convenience heavily favoured WEG's right to protect the integrity of its racing product.

In a separate matter, the Commission upheld a $1,500 fine against a standardbred licensee but reduced his suspension to 13 days.

Standardbred licensees brought motions before the Ontario Racing Commission seeking procedural relief prior to hearings regarding positive tests for Aminorex.

The Commission ordered the Administration to provide Amended Notices of Hearing detailing the alleged misconduct and rules violated.

The request for a court reporter was dismissed as moot due to a new policy of tape-recording all hearings.

The Commission ordered the Administration to disclose all information provided to the Judges, including material from the Canadian Pari-Mutuel Association, and granted a 20-day stay of proceedings for all current Aminorex positive test hearings.

The appellant, a thoroughbred jockey, appealed the penalty imposed by the Stewards for assaulting another licensee with a weapon in the jockeys' quarters.

The original penalty was a 60-day suspension and a $5,000 fine.

The Ontario Racing Commission allowed the appeal as to penalty, substituting a $2,500 fine and a 5-day suspension, which was stayed for 6 months on the condition of no similar altercations.

The appellant, a standardbred owner/driver/trainer, appealed a 75-day suspension and $1,000 fine imposed after his horse tested positive for Class 4 drugs.

The Ontario Racing Commission denied the appeal, noting the appellant's history of medication-related infractions and emphasizing the need for deterrence and strict adherence to medication handling policies.

The licensee appealed the Director's Order of Immediate Suspension, Proposed Order, and Ruling imposing a $100,000 fine.

At the hearing, the Director elected to call no evidence.

On an unopposed motion by the licensee's counsel, the Panel set aside the suspension and ruling, and refused the proposed order.

The appellant, a standardbred licensee, requested a hearing to appeal the Director's Order of Immediate Suspension, Proposed Order, and a Ruling imposing a $100,000 fine.

At the hearing, the Director elected to call no evidence.

On an unopposed motion by the appellant, the panel set aside the Order of Immediate Suspension, refused the Proposed Order, and set aside the Director's Ruling.

Standardbred licensee Randy Zhok appealed the penalty of a $1,500 fine and a 90-day suspension imposed after his horse tested positive for the prohibited substance Torsemide.

The appellant admitted liability but argued for a reduced penalty based on his clean record.

The Ontario Racing Commission dismissed the appeal, finding the penalty appropriate given the appellant's careless approach to medication and his refusal to disclose the source of the unapproved drug.

The appellant, a standardbred licensee, appealed a 60-day suspension and $1,500 fine for a positive drug test and requested a stay pending the appeal.

The Executive Director denied the stay.

On review, the Commission granted a temporary stay until April 30, 2007, to allow the appeal to be heard expeditiously, noting that a recent policy change regarding the automatic granting of stays had not been adequately communicated to the industry.

The appellant, a standardbred licensee, received a 60-day suspension and a $1,500 fine after his horse tested positive for a Class 3 drug.

He appealed the penalty and requested a stay of the suspension pending the appeal, which the Director denied.

The Ontario Racing Commission reviewed the denial and granted a temporary stay until April 30, 2007, finding that while the appellant had not demonstrated exceptional circumstances, the Commission's change in policy regarding the automatic granting of stays had not been adequately communicated to the industry.