James Donnelly

The appellant appealed the Ontario Racing Commission's 2012 schedule of race dates for Sudbury Downs, requesting that three race dates in November be moved to December.

The panel denied the appeal, finding that the requested changes were not supported by horse supply or customer demand, and that the original dates were assigned in accordance with the principles of the Ontario Racing Program.

The appellant, Aaron Waxman, appealed a decision of the Ontario Racing Commission Judges to freeze $12,500 in purse winnings accrued by his horse, Jinglejanglejingle.

The purse was frozen following the suspension of the appellant's brother, who previously co-owned the horse.

The Panel found that a bona fide transfer of ownership to the appellant had occurred prior to the races in question, and the Judges had not required prior approval for this transfer.

The appeal was allowed, and the appellant was entitled to the purse winnings.

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.

Great Canadian Gaming Corporation (GCGC) appealed the terms and conditions of its racetrack licences for Flamboro Downs and Georgian Downs, which required cooperation with financial examinations of GCGC and its associated companies.

The Ontario Racing Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the Director has the jurisdiction to impose such conditions under the Racing Commission Act.

The panel held that full financial disclosure of the parent company is necessary to understand the operations of the subsidiaries and to properly discharge the Director's regulatory duties.

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 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 appellants, a horse owner and a jockey, appealed the Stewards' rulings disqualifying their horse from first place and suspending the jockey for three days for alleged interference during a race.

The Ontario Racing Commission heard the appeal de novo.

Based on new video evidence and expert testimony, the Panel found that the jockey did not interfere with, intimidate, or impede any other horse, but merely moved into unoccupied space.

The Panel granted both appeals and restored the original order of finish.

The appellant, a thoroughbred owner and trainer, appealed a decision of the Track Stewards disqualifying his horse from first to ninth place after the jockey used an unapproved riding crop.

The appellant argued that the penalty was disproportionate and that the Stewards were estopped from disqualifying the horse because track officials had allegedly told the jockey to ride with the unapproved crop.

The Ontario Racing Commission denied the appeal, finding that the rule mandates automatic disqualification for using an unapproved crop and that track officials, who are not Commission officials, lack the authority to override the rules.

Georgian Downs and the Ontario Harness Horse Association appealed a decision of the Director of the Ontario Racing Commission denying a request to transfer $40,000 from the Georgian Downs purse account to pay for track maintenance.

The Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the purse account funds are held in trust for the benefit of all horse people and that using them for track operational costs did not meet the required benefit threshold under the rules.

The Commission emphasized its fiduciary duty to protect the public interest and the integrity of the purse account.

The Ontario Harness Horse Association (OHHA) requested a hearing regarding the actions of Woodbine Entertainment Group (WEG) and the Central Ontario Standardbred Association (COSA).

WEG brought a motion arguing that the Ontario Racing Commission lacked jurisdiction to hear the matter.

The Panel granted WEG's motion, finding that the Commission had no jurisdiction, and dismissed OHHA's application.

The licensee appealed an Order of Immediate Suspension and a Notice of Proposed Order to suspend his licence for 10 years and impose a $40,000 fine.

The Ontario Racing Commission panel denied the appeal, confirmed the 10-year suspension, and increased the fine to $60,000.

Reasons for decision were to follow.

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 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 licensee, appealed a Notice of Proposed Order refusing to issue him a hotwalker's licence, imposing a $5,000 fine, and prohibiting him from applying for a licence for five years.

The penalty arose after a horse trained by the appellant reared up, fractured its skull, and was euthanized on the track.

A necropsy revealed numerous recent injection marks on the horse's jugular veins and carotid artery.

The Commission found that the appellant violated the trainer responsibility rule, as the evidence established the horse was injected shortly before its death.

However, the Commission stayed the suspension and fine, placing the appellant on probation for four years.

Thoroughbred licensee Gary Parkin appealed a decision regarding an alleged illegal injection administered to a horse, Espresso Gal, prior to its euthanasia.

The Administration's case relied on circumstantial evidence, specifically the presence of neutrophils at an injection site, to argue that a third injection was administered at least 15 minutes before death.

The dissenting Vice-Chair found the evidence regarding the time of death and the neutrophil migration to be unreliable and not cogent, clear, or compelling.

The dissent concluded that the Administration failed to meet its burden of proof and would have allowed the appeal, cancelling the fine and license restriction.

The appellant, a standardbred driver, appealed a six-month suspension and $5,000 fine for cutting a horse with his whip during a race.

The Ontario Racing Commission found that the appellant used his whip in a brutal and inhumane manner, causing a fresh, painful cut to the horse's testicles.

Given the appellant's extensive history of whipping violations, the Commission upheld the finding of misconduct but stayed four months of the suspension, resulting in a two-month active suspension, a $5,000 fine, a two-year probationary period, and a requirement to drive with both hands in the hand holders for six months.

The appellant, a standardbred licensee, appealed a ruling finding a violation of racing rules arising from a positive test for Aminorex in a horse.

At the hearing de novo, the Administration called no evidence.

On consent of all parties, the Commission allowed the appeal, set aside the finding of responsibility, and maintained the purse redistribution.

Standardbred licensee Karen Cooper appealed a ruling finding a violation of rules arising from a positive test for Aminorex in a horse.

At the hearing de novo, the Administration called no evidence and the parties consented to an order.

The Commission allowed the appeal, set aside the finding of responsibility, and maintained the portion of the ruling relating to purse redistribution.

Standardbred licensee Garry Merner appealed a ruling finding a violation of racing rules arising from a positive test for the Class I substance AMINOREX in a horse.

At the hearing de novo, the Administration called no evidence and consented to the appeal.

The Commission allowed the appeal, made no finding of responsibility, and set aside the original ruling, subject to certain rules remaining in effect.

Standardbred trainer Anette Lorentzon appealed a ruling finding a violation of the rules due to a positive test for Aminorex in a horse.

At the hearing de novo, the Administration called no evidence.

On consent of all parties, the appeal was allowed, no finding of responsibility was made, and the previous ruling was set aside, except for the portion relating to Rules 9.13 and 18.08.01.