Pamela Frostad

The appellant, a standardbred driver, appealed a $500 fine and three-day suspension for a fourth offence of indiscriminate whip use under Rule 22.22.

The Ontario Racing Commission panel upheld the finding of the rule violation, noting evidence of the whip being used between the horse's legs.

However, the panel found an administrative error in calculating the number of prior offences and varied the penalty to a $500 fine for a third offence.

The appellant, a standardbred trainer, appealed a ruling prohibiting him from participating in racing in Ontario based on a reciprocal enforcement of a ban in Virginia and a licence revocation in Massachusetts.

The appellant had failed to disclose these foreign penalties on his Ontario licence applications.

The Ontario Racing Commission rescinded the reciprocal enforcement order due to concerns about procedural fairness in the foreign jurisdiction, but accepted a joint submission cancelling the appellant's trainer's licence and granting him a conditional tradesman's licence as a farrier due to his failure to disclose the foreign penalties.

The appellant, a standardbred licensee, appealed a Notice of Proposed Order to revoke his licence.

A due diligence investigation revealed that the appellant had failed to disclose his criminal record, including convictions for fraud and impaired driving, and numerous driving suspensions on his licence applications over a ten-year period.

The Ontario Racing Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the Director had reasonable grounds to conclude the appellant would not act with honesty, integrity, or in the public interest.

The appellant's licence was revoked, with the condition that he may reapply in two years or upon proving he has satisfied his outstanding financial obligations.

Sudbury Downs appealed a ruling by the Judges requiring the track to provide and maintain bedding for ship-in stalls at no cost to horsepersons, and to keep horses from the same stable together.

The Ontario Racing Commission upheld the requirement to provide bedding, finding it to be a basic animal husbandry requirement and within the Judges' authority to protect the health and welfare of horses in the public interest.

The Commission ordered the track to provide bedding until its current contract with the Northern Horsemen's Association expires, after which costs are to be resolved between the parties.

The appeal regarding stall assignments was upheld, conditional on the track's ongoing commitment to offer convenience to horsepersons.

Rideau Carleton Raceway appealed a $5,000 fine imposed by the Judges for failing to have the racing strip suitably prepared for racing, which caused the cancellation of races due to unsafe, dusty conditions.

The Ontario Racing Commission panel dismissed the appeal, finding clear evidence that the track was not race-ready and that the track superintendent failed to comply with an order to provide weekly reports.

The panel upheld the fine and ordered the track's surface committee to meet weekly with mandatory reporting.

The appellant, a standardbred licensee, appealed a one-year suspension and $5,000 fine imposed by the Judges after her horse tested positive for caffeine, a Class II drug.

The appellant admitted to administering a product called Step Up, which she did not know contained caffeine, through her veterinarian.

The Ontario Racing Commission allowed the appeal in part, reducing the suspension to six months and the fine to $2,500.

The Commission found mitigating factors, including the appellant's lack of intent to gain an unfair advantage and her reliance on a licensed veterinarian, which warranted a reduction in the penalty.

The appellant appealed a Standardbred Official Ruling that fined him $1,000 and placed him on a one-year probation for violating the Rules of Standardbred Racing.

The Ontario Racing Commission panel denied the appeal, upholding the fine and probation.

Additionally, the panel imposed a further $1,000 penalty on the appellant for bringing a frivolous appeal, noting that he had agreed to the facts and offered no clear, compelling, or cogent explanation for his actions.