Sandra Meyrick

The Appellants, a Thoroughbred Licensee and a Quarter Horse Licensee, appealed against rulings of the Ontario Racing Commission.

Following a hearing, the Commission ordered that the purse funds would not be paid to the Appellants but would be redistributed.

The Appellants were directed to return any held purse funds to the respective racetrack for redistribution, failing which they would not be licensed by the Commission.

The appellant trainer appealed a nine-month suspension and $5,000 fine imposed after his horse tested positive for Oxycodone.

The official sample consisted of three blood vials.

While one vial tested positive for trace amounts of the drug, the other two vials tested negative.

The panel accepted expert evidence that it is physiologically impossible for a continuous blood draw to distribute a drug into only one vial, concluding the single positive vial must have been contaminated.

The appeal was allowed and the penalties were set aside.

The appellant appealed a stewards' ruling that declared a dead heat for first position between two horses following a race.

The Ontario Racing Commission denied the appeal, upholding the stewards' decision made pursuant to Rule 13.03.01 of the Rules of Thoroughbred Racing.

The appellants, Mike Doyle and David Moran, appealed a ruling that suspended Moran for 3 racing days and disqualified their horse from 3rd to 9th place due to interference.

The Ontario Racing Commission upheld the disqualification, finding on a balance of probabilities that interference occurred.

However, the Commission allowed Moran's appeal and overturned his 3-day suspension.

Additionally, a jockey who failed to appear as a witness despite being summoned was fined $500.

The appellants appealed a ruling that suspended jockey Patrick Husbands for three days and placed his horse, FLASHAWAY, from 1st to 8th position due to alleged interference in a race.

The Ontario Racing Commission allowed the appeal, finding that the Administration failed to establish on a balance of probabilities that Husbands caused the bottleneck or violated the rules.

The race footage and witness testimony raised considerable doubt regarding culpability.

The suspension was set aside, and the horse was restored to 1st position.

The appellant appealed the Director's Notice of Proposed Order to Refuse to Issue a licence to him.

The appellant failed to appear at the hearing.

The Ontario Racing Commission dismissed the appeal due to the appellant's failure to appear and present his position.

Michelle Redel appealed a Notice of Proposed Order refusing to renew her racing licence due to past criminal charges, including animal cruelty and assault.

The parties reached an Agreed Statement of Facts and Joint Submission for Disposition.

Redel withdrew her appeal and licence application, agreeing not to reapply until June 2016 and to comply with her probation orders.

The Ontario Racing Commission accepted the joint submission.

The appellant jockey appealed a $200 penalty for failing to lodge an objection when fouled during a thoroughbred race.

The Ontario Racing Commission upheld the finding of a rule violation, noting the positive obligation to claim foul when interference occurs.

However, finding the appellant credible in his assertion that he was unaware of the interference, the Commission varied the penalty by staying the $200 fine for six months, provided no similar infractions occur.

The appellant appealed a judges' ruling that found his horse passed two consecutive pylons and gained an unfair advantage during a race.

In accordance with Rule 22.09 of the Rules of Standardbred Racing, the horse had finished second but was placed sixth.

The Ontario Racing Commission denied the appeal, upholding the unanimous findings of the judges after reviewing the race tapes.

The appellants appealed against rulings for a violation of the Rules of Standardbred Racing.

The panel found that the driver left the course by going inside a pylon, gaining an unfair advantage during a race.

The appeal was denied, the horse was moved from a second-place finish to a seventh-place finish, and the driver was fined $100.

The appellant appealed a ruling that placed his horse, Bad Fox, second in a race at Woodbine Racetrack.

The Ontario Racing Commission panel found that while the appeal was not frivolous and the race was very tight, the judges' original determination should be upheld.

The appeal was denied.

The appellant owner appealed a 90-day suspension imposed on his horse after a positive test for TCO2.

The trainer's suspension had previously been reduced to 45 days by the judges.

The Commission found that while the positive test was an absolute liability offence, fairness dictated that the horse's suspension should not exceed the trainer's suspension.

The appeal was denied but the penalty was varied to a 45-day suspension.

The appellant, a horse trainer, appealed the Director's decision denying a stay of a suspension related to a positive drug test for a Class II drug.

The Commission heard evidence that the appellant's veterinarian followed CPMA guidelines, administered half the recommended dosage, and allowed extra time for metabolization.

Finding that the appellant had a good record and committed no wrongdoing, the Commission granted the stay with standard conditions pending the full appeal hearing.

The appellant appealed a ruling by horse racing judges that prohibited him from entering the restricted area of an association.

The Ontario Racing Commission panel determined that while judges do have the authority to expel properly signed-in guests from restricted areas under the Rules of Standardbred Racing, the specific ruling against the appellant was not fair and reasonable.

The Administration failed to meet its burden of proof on a balance of probabilities.

The appeal was allowed, with full reasons to follow.

Gabriella Sasso and Ronald Adams appealed Notices of Proposed Orders of Suspension and fines issued by the Director for violating 'hidden trainer' rules by associating with a suspended trainer.

The Ontario Racing Commission panel found clear, cogent, and compelling evidence that the suspended trainer was improperly involved in their business.

However, the panel concluded the proposed penalties were too severe, as the appellants had been taken advantage of by the suspended trainer.

The panel allowed the appeal in part, reducing Sasso's suspension to six months and fine to $2,000, and Adams's suspension to eight months and fine to $5,000.

The panel also ordered the release of frozen purse monies to the owners and drivers.

Lyle MacArthur appealed against standardbred track judges' rulings imposing a 60-day suspension, a $1,500 fine, and two years' probation after his horse tested positive for a TCO2 overage.

The parties presented a joint submission indicating that an interaction between two permitted therapeutic substances was a causal factor in the overage.

The Ontario Racing Commission accepted the joint submission and varied the penalty by staying 15 days of the 60-day suspension.

The appellant, a jockey, appealed a ruling that suspended him for three racing dates for causing interference during a race.

The Ontario Racing Commission panel heard testimony from the stewards and other jockeys, and reviewed video replays of the race.

The panel found on a balance of probabilities that the appellant caused interference with two inside horses in breach of the Rules of Thoroughbred Racing.

Finding no satisfactory evidence to justify a reduction of the standard penalty, the panel upheld the three-day suspension and denied the appeal.

The licensee, a jockey, appealed a three-day suspension for causing interference during a horse race.

Upon reviewing the race tapes, the Ontario Racing Commission found that the licensee's horse moved from the two path to the three path, causing interference with another horse.

Finding no reason to deviate from the standard penalty, the Commission dismissed the appeal and upheld the three-day suspension.

The appellant, a standardbred licensee, sought a stay of an Order of Immediate Suspension pending the disposition of his appeal.

The Ontario Racing Commission denied the request for a stay, finding that the appellant failed to demonstrate extraordinary or mitigating circumstances through clear, cogent, and compelling evidence to overcome the Commission's no-stay policy.

The appeal was ordered to be heard expeditiously.

The appellant applied for a reinstatement hearing after his licence was immediately suspended.

The Ontario Racing Commission panel accepted an Understanding Agreement between the Administration and the appellant.

Under the agreement, the appellant must obtain an assessment from a substance abuse professional and enter into a two-year post violation agreement.

A $1,000 fine was imposed but stayed, provided the appellant does not breach the agreement.