John W. Macdonald

The Ontario Harness Horse Association (OHHA) appealed a decision by the Director of the Ontario Racing Commission allocating Standardbred Revenue Allocation (SRA) marketing funds to both OHHA and the Central Ontario Standardbred Association (COSA).

The funds, totaling over $2.1 million, were held in trust by the Woodbine Entertainment Group after its contract with OHHA expired and it entered a new contract with COSA.

The majority of the panel denied the appeal, finding it had jurisdiction to hear the matter de novo and to interpret the underlying Memorandum of Understanding and Business Plan in the best interests of racing.

The panel concluded that COSA qualifies as a provincially recognized horsepersons' association and ordered the funds to be distributed proportionally between OHHA and COSA based on wagering levels and racetrack affiliations, subject to conditions on their use for marketing.

A dissenting member would have allocated all funds to OHHA.

The Ontario Harness Horse Association and Central Ontario Standardbred Association appealed an order of the executive director.

The Ontario Racing Commission panel issued procedural directions for an upcoming hearing, including notifying other industry parties to determine their participation.

The panel also scheduled a motion to quash a subpoena and ordered that the executive director's January 7, 2016 order be stayed until the conclusion of the hearing relating to the SRA funds.

The appellant appealed a three-day driving suspension for interference during a harness race.

The Ontario Racing Commission found that while interference occurred, it was not intentional and the other driver was able to protect his horse.

The Commission denied the appeal but varied the penalty, reducing the suspension from three days to one day.

The appellant appealed a decision regarding the transfer of a racehorse, PASSION QUIZRACE, to her as the trainer.

The Administration had concerns about an indirect transfer from a suspended trainer, the appellant's mother.

The panel found no evidence that the suspended trainer was involved in the appellant's training operations and noted the appellant had successfully raced the horse multiple times since the initial transfer.

The appeal was allowed, and the trainer transfer was approved subject to conditions, including allowing visitations by investigators until the appellant receives her A licence.

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 the Director's proposal to refuse his application for a horse racing licence.

The appellant had a criminal record, including being on the sex offender registry for life and subject to a 20-year prohibition from attending areas where persons under 16 are present.

The Commission found that the appellant failed to fully and accurately disclose his record on his application forms, demonstrating a lack of integrity and honesty.

The appeal was denied and the refusal of the licence was confirmed.

The appellant, a jockey, appealed a 3-day suspension imposed by the stewards for failing to maintain a straight path during a race.

The Ontario Racing Commission reviewed the video evidence and testimony, finding that the appellant's horse moved out from the four path to the six path, interfering with another horse.

The Commission found that the appellant made no serious attempt to correct the horse's path and continued to hit left-handed.

The appeal was denied, and the 3-day suspension was upheld, to be served at the start of the 2016 racing season.

The appellant, a harness racing driver, appealed a 1-day driving suspension for failing to have his horse on the starting gate.

The Ontario Racing Commission denied the appeal, finding that the appellant made no noticeable effort to urge the horse to the gate, which disadvantaged the betting public.

The panel upheld the suspension, noting the appellant admitted the horse was off the gate.

The appellant appealed a ruling that placed his horse back a notch due to interference during a race.

The interference occurred when the appellant's whip got caught in another driver's sulky, pushing the other horse out.

The Commission denied the appeal, finding that the driver is responsible for controlling the whip and that interference was shown, justifying the loss of placing.

The appellant, a horse trainer, sought a stay of a 90-day suspension imposed on a horse following a positive test for minoxidil, a Class 3 drug.

The Ontario Racing Commission granted a 60-day stay, noting that minoxidil was a novel drug in this context, its effects and elimination time were unknown, and the trainer had a clean record.

The stay was granted to allow time for the ongoing investigation to be completed.

The appellants appealed a ruling that suspended a jockey for three racing days and placed her horse third for interference during a race.

The Ontario Racing Commission found that the jockey's horse drifted toward the rail, cutting off the direct path of another horse and changing its momentum.

The appeals were denied.

The appellant, a horse trainer, appealed a decision denying his request for a stay of a suspension following a positive drug test for levamisole and pemoline in one of his horses.

The Ontario Racing Commission granted a 120-day stay with conditions, finding sufficient mitigating factors, including the appellant's reliance on a veterinarian and the lack of evidence that the substances were performance-enhancing.

The panel concluded that the balance of convenience and public interest favoured granting the stay pending a full hearing on the merits.

The appellants appealed a ruling for interference during a horse race at Woodbine Racetrack.

The Commissioner found that the jockey's actions caused interference, justifying the disqualification.

However, acknowledging some doubt as to whether the jockey could see the other horse, the Commissioner varied the standard three-day riding suspension to a two-day suspension.

The appellant appealed a Stewards' ruling regarding an incident during a horse race.

The Ontario Racing Commission panel reviewed video evidence of the stretch run and found that the 7 horse interfered with the 8 horse by pushing it closer to the rail.

The panel concluded that interference occurred and denied the appeal.

The appellant appealed a stewards' ruling that disqualified his horse for interference at the start of a race.

The Ontario Racing Commission panel reviewed the race footage and found that the horse took a path that was not clear, causing interference with another horse.

The panel affirmed that a disqualification can occur at any point in a race, including the start.

The appeal was denied and the disqualification was upheld.

The appellant, a standardbred driver, appealed a $200 fine for violating Rule 22.03(j)(vii) of the Rules of Standardbred Racing by failing to bring his horse into position at the starting gate.

The appellant argued that he was concerned about pushing the three-year-old horse too much and forcing a break.

The Ontario Racing Commission denied the appeal, finding that the horse was too far off the gate and that public perception required enforcing the rule.

The fine was upheld.

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 ruling charging her with a violation of Rule 17.17 of the Rules of Standardbred Racing for inappropriately scratching a horse.

The Ontario Racing Commission denied the appeal, finding that the horse had been properly entered and classified, and that scratching the horse was not appropriate despite another racing opportunity being available.

The fine was upheld, but no additional costs were ordered.

The appellant, a licensed jockey, appealed a ruling that found he violated several Rules of Thoroughbred Racing and imposed a three-day suspension.

The Ontario Racing Commission found that the appellant's riding caused interference with another horse near the wire, as he hit his horse left-handed and failed to control it, causing it to move out.

The appeal was denied and the three-day suspension was upheld.

Following a Divisional Court decision that quashed the original penalty for a lasix overage, the matter was referred back to the Ontario Racing Commission for redetermination.

The parties presented a joint submission for a $300 fine, noting that the Divisional Court found lasix overages were not covered by the Commission's Penalty Guidelines but rather the Uniform Classification Guidelines.

The Panel accepted the joint submission and imposed the $300 fine.