Lynda Tanaka

Standardbred licensee Simon Allard appealed a one-year suspension and $10,000 fine resulting from a positive test for a class III substance.

The appellant failed to attend the scheduled hearing before the Ontario Racing Commission.

Upon motion by the Administration, the panel dismissed the appeal as abandoned.

Standardbred licensee Darrell Coville appeared before the Ontario Racing Commission following a second positive test for cocaine within a 24-month period.

The Commission accepted the Administration's recommended penalty, imposing a four-month suspension, mandatory completion of an addiction treatment program, and a one-year probationary period with random drug testing.

The Commission emphasized its strict policy against cocaine use in horse racing.

The appellant, a standardbred owner/driver/trainer, appealed a ruling that fined him $5,000 and suspended him for one year after his horse tested positive for caffeine, theophylline, and theobromine.

The Ontario Racing Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant administered a human-consumption product to the horse four hours before the race to enhance performance without researching it or consulting a veterinarian.

The panel concluded the appellant failed to demonstrate due diligence.

The licensee was required to appear before the Commission for a second positive test for cocaine and filed a Notice of Appeal.

At the hearing, the licensee advised of his intention to challenge the positive test result.

The Commission ordered the hearing adjourned to allow the Administration to obtain documentary disclosure and arrange witnesses.

The Commission also ordered the licensee's license restored to active status pending the commencement of the hearing.

The licensee requested a hearing regarding a notice of proposed order by the Director to revoke his standardbred and thoroughbred owner licenses.

The Administration presented wiretap and documentary evidence connecting the licensee to an illegal sports betting operation.

The licensee did not testify to rebut the evidence.

The Commission found reasonable grounds to believe the licensee would not act in accordance with the law, honesty, or integrity, and ordered the revocation of his licenses.

The moving party, an owner of a horse that participated in the Maple Leaf Trot, brought a motion seeking an order to re-run the race or for compensation due to a starter error.

The starter had mistakenly flashed recall lights but let the race proceed, causing some drivers to take hold of their horses.

The Commission determined it had jurisdiction to order a re-run and to refund entry fees, but not to assess damages for lost purse opportunities.

However, the Commission declined to exercise its jurisdiction to hold a hearing for the requested relief, finding it contrary to the public interest and unfair to other participants who had already competed.

The appellant, a racing association official, appealed a $500 fine imposed by the Stewards for failing to comply with a Steward's direction.

The dispute arose when the appellant instructed his staff to pull the entry of a horse that was on the veterinarian's list and therefore ineligible to race, contrary to the Steward's instruction to leave the entry in until the Board of Stewards could rule on it.

The Panel found that the horse was clearly ineligible and the trainer agreed, meaning there was no dispute for the Board to resolve.

Given the appellant's blemish-free record and the circumstances, the appeal was allowed.

The appellants, a jockey and an owner, appealed a Stewards' Ruling that suspended the jockey for three days for interference and disqualified their horse from first to sixth place.

The Ontario Racing Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the jockey made an error in judgment by moving into the rail lane and failing to give another rider enough room.

The three-day suspension and the placing of the horse were upheld.

The appellant appealed a ruling and requested a hearing regarding a proposed order to suspend his standardbred license for one year or until a US criminal indictment against him was resolved.

The Ontario Racing Commission upheld the proposed order, finding the Director had reasonable grounds to conclude the appellant would not act with honesty and integrity in the public interest, given the charges related to ephedrine and the use of a barn for its storage.

The Director of the Ontario Racing Commission issued a Notice of Proposed Order to refuse to issue a thoroughbred owner licence to the applicant.

The applicant requested a hearing.

The Commission considered wiretap evidence obtained during an illegal gambling investigation.

The Commission found that the voice on the wiretaps was the applicant's and that he was engaged in illegal wagering on horse races and facilitating off-shore internet gambling.

The Commission concluded that the applicant's conduct undermined the horse racing industry and that he was unlikely to act in accordance with the law.

The Commission confirmed the Director's proposed order to refuse the licence.

The appellant, a thoroughbred licensee, appealed a Stewards Ruling and a subsequent decision of the Ontario Racing Industry Board of Appeal that fined him $400 for disturbing the peace, obnoxious behaviour, and making threats against another licensee.

The Ontario Racing Commission dismissed the appeal, finding ample evidence of inappropriate conduct and language.

The Commission upheld the $400 fine and strongly urged the appellant to seek counselling for anger management and financial responsibility.

The Ontario Racing Commission reviewed applications for the 2006 horse racing season.

The Commission approved the requested live standardbred, thoroughbred, and quarter horse race dates, as well as simulcast dates for various racetracks across the province.

All post times were approved as applied for.

The licensee, a Standardbred Owner/Trainer/Driver, appealed a Notice of Proposed Order from the Director to revoke his licence following two criminal convictions for sexual assault against female grooms in his employ.

The Commission found that while the licensee's conduct was criminal and contrary to the public interest, his licence should not be revoked entirely, as he was undergoing rehabilitation and the Commission wished to retain supervisory power.

The Commission substituted the revocation with a three-month full suspension, an additional three-month suspension for owning and training, a twelve-month probation, a $5,000 fine, and mandatory ongoing counselling.

Three standardbred owners/trainers appealed rulings by the Standardbred Judges at Grand River Raceway regarding alleged misconduct with respect to the horse LAVROS STAR N. The Ontario Racing Commission upheld the findings of improper conduct and rule violations regarding ownership and control for Matthew Shibley.

The Commission allowed Joseph Shibley's appeal regarding a hidden training interest but upheld other rule violations, reducing his penalty.

Patrick Shibley's appeal on liability was dismissed, but his penalty was reduced.

The Commission emphasized the importance of proper business practices and documentation in the horse racing industry.

The appellant, Strong Yankee Stable, appealed a judges' ruling that placed its horse, Strong Yankee, second after finishing first in an elimination heat.

The judges found the driver violated racing rules by coming to the starting gate in the wrong position and interfering with another horse.

The Ontario Racing Commission reviewed the videotape and upheld the judges' decision, finding clear evidence of a rule violation that disadvantaged another driver.

The appeal was dismissed, and the purse and post position draw were ordered to reflect the judges' placement.

The appellant, a standardbred owner, trainer, and driver, appealed a ruling finding he violated the Rules of Standardbred Racing by failing to report the deaths of two horses for which he was the trainer of record.

The Ontario Racing Commission dismissed the appeal on liability, finding the appellant failed to discharge his obligations.

The Commission allowed the appeal on penalty in part, modifying the licence suspensions and staying half of the $5,000 fine for one year, subject to conditions.

The appellant, a standardbred licensee, appealed a judges' ruling that suspended him for five days for violating Rule 22.05.01(a) of the Rules of Standardbred Racing by causing interference during a race.

The Ontario Racing Commission heard evidence from the judges, drivers, and the appellant, and reviewed the race video.

The Commission found that the appellant bore down too close to another horse, causing interference.

The appeal was dismissed and the five-day suspension was upheld.

The applicant, a licensed standardbred trainer, applied for a hearing regarding a requirement imposed by Woodbine Entertainment Group (WEG) that his horses be placed in a retention barn prior to racing.

The Commission convened a panel to determine if it had jurisdiction to hold the requested hearing.

The Commission found that WEG's requirement arose from its own policies and private contracts, not from a delegated power under the Racing Commission Act, 2000, meaning there was no statutory entitlement to a hearing under s. 11(7).

While the Commission had discretion to hold a hearing under s. 7(k), it declined to do so, finding that the specific application of the retention policy to the applicant did not engage the public interest or involve the good of horse racing generally.

The licensee, a standardbred driver, tested positive for a cocaine metabolite, marking his second positive drug test within a 24-month period.

He voluntarily entered a residential substance abuse treatment program.

The Ontario Racing Commission ordered a 5-month suspension, staying 110 days of the suspension on the condition that he successfully complete the residential treatment program.

Upon reinstatement, the licensee will be subject to a 1-year probationary period with mandatory drug testing and a requirement to abstain from controlled substances.

The licensee, a standardbred owner/driver/trainer, appealed a Judges' ruling that fined him $1,500, suspended him for 120 days, and placed him on probation for two years for failing to provide a proper urine sample.

The licensee provided urine samples that registered below the required 90 degrees Fahrenheit on the temperature strip.

The Commission accepted expert evidence that samples below this temperature indicate alteration or substitution.

The Commission found the licensee failed to provide a proper sample and dismissed the appeal, affirming the penalty.