Pam Frostad

The appellant appealed the Director's Notice of Proposed Order refusing to issue him a standardbred licence.

The appellant had previously been suspended for 14 months.

During a search of his stable, investigators found thyroxine, a controlled drug, which the appellant had acquired without a veterinary examination or blood test, violating the Rules of Racing.

The Ontario Racing Commission panel denied the appeal, finding that the appellant's conduct placed the integrity of the horse racing industry in question and that he failed to demonstrate he would act in accordance with the law or in the public interest.

His licence remains suspended, with eligibility to re-apply in two years.

The licensee appealed a 1-year suspension and $6,000 fine imposed for a Class II positive for Ephedrine.

The Administration of the ORC sought an abridged penalty of 90 days and a $3,000 fine, noting that Ephedrine positives have been treated as Class III.

The Commission allowed the appeal in part, reducing the penalty to a 90-day suspension (with 30 days stayed), a $2,000 fine, and a two-year probation, emphasizing the trainer's responsibility to know the contents of administered products.

The appellant, a standardbred licensee, appealed a ruling that prohibited her from racing horses she owned against horses owned or trained by her partner of 15 years.

The Ontario Racing Commission found that the appellant failed to prove she had an independent business operation from her partner.

The Commission held that allowing them to race against each other without independent operations would be akin to running an undisclosed entry, which is detrimental to the public perception of honesty and integrity in racing.

The appeal was denied.

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 appellants, standardbred licensees, failed to appear for their appeal hearing regarding the proposed revocation of their licences.

Their representative and counsel for the Administration agreed to adjourn the hearing to a peremptory date.

The panel granted the adjournment and ordered the appellants to collectively pay $1,000 in costs thrown away due to their failure to attend.

The appellant, owner of the second-place horse, appealed a decision of the Ontario Racing Commission Judges who found no violations requiring a placing after the winning horse broke stride at the start and its driver allegedly violated the whipping rule near the finish.

The Commission panel dismissed the appeal, finding that the Judges correctly interpreted and applied the rules of racing.

The driver of the winning horse lost ground while on the break and did not strike the horse with the whip when he raised it in celebration.

The appellant, a standardbred licensee and trainer, appealed two rulings suspending him and imposing fines after a horse he trained tested positive for furosemide.

The Ontario Racing Commission heard expert testimony that the horse was a rare outlier unable to metabolize the drug normally, and that the appellant had done everything possible to comply with the rules.

The Commission granted the appeal and reduced the fines and suspensions to zero, applying the strict liability defence.

The standardbred licensees appealed rulings suspending them for 15 days and fining them $1,000 each for violating racing rules related to the injection of a horse on race day and failing to properly name the trainer.

The licensees failed to attend the appeal hearing despite receiving notice and warnings about costs.

The Ontario Racing Commission proceeded in their absence, accepted the unchallenged evidence that the horse was injected to affect performance, and upheld the original penalties.

The Commission also ordered the licensees to pay $1,500 in costs for bringing a frivolous appeal.

The appellant, a standardbred licensee, appealed the 90-day suspension of his horses following positive tests for Darbepoetin-Alpha (EPO).

He did not appeal his own 10-year suspension and $40,000 fine, but sought to have the horses' suspension period truncated to allow for their immediate sale.

The Ontario Racing Commission found that while it had the authority to waive or abridge the suspension under Rule 1.09, doing so would be prejudicial to the best interests of racing.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant, a licensed driver, appealed a 60-day driving suspension and the placing of his horse from second to sixth for a driving violation during a harness race.

The judges found he committed interference by putting a wheel under another horse for a sustained period.

The Ontario Racing Commission dismissed the appeal regarding the violation and the placing of the horse, finding overwhelming evidence of deliberate and dangerous careless driving.

However, the Commission reduced the driving suspension from 60 days to 30 days because the original penalty was based on a duplicated entry in the appellant's driving record.

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 by the Director refusing him a licence and prohibiting re-application for two years.

The Ontario Racing Commission denied the appeal, finding that the appellant had an unaddressed substance abuse problem and had not provided evidence of seeking professional help.

The Commission refused the licence but allowed the appellant to re-apply in March 2010, subject to strict conditions including proof of successful completion of a substance abuse program and good behaviour.

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 appellant, a standardbred owner and trainer, appealed a penalty of an eight-month full suspension and a $3,000 fine after her horse tested positive for Lidocaine, a Class II drug.

The positive test resulted from the administration of Polysporin containing Lidocaine.

The Ontario Racing Commission found the appellant guilty of violating the rules but recognized mitigating circumstances, including her clean past record, the lack of animus, and the honest mistake regarding the over-the-counter medication.

The Commission reduced the suspension to 90 days, staying the remaining five months, but upheld the $3,000 fine and the 90-day penalty for the horse.