Stanley Sadinsky, K.C.

In a horse racing regulatory appeal, the appellant trainer sought an extension of a stay pending the appeal of a ruling arising from a positive post-race equine drug test.

The panel noted that the original stay had been conditioned on an appeal hearing by mid-April 2026, but the appellant's counsel later became unavailable for that timetable.

With the registrar's consent, the panel extended the stay on the condition that the appeal hearing proceed in May 2026.

The underlying ruling included a one-year suspension, a $10,000 monetary penalty, medication-program requirements, access restrictions, and purse-disgorgement consequences for the horse.

In a regulatory costs motion arising from appeals concerning horses scratched from scheduled races after a trainer's suspension, the moving parties sought costs on the basis that the regulator had acted unreasonably in bringing a prior motion to dismiss without a hearing.

The Panel held that the threshold for unreasonable conduct under Rule 13.1 is high and that costs should only be awarded in exceptional circumstances, including patently unreasonable conduct or conduct that is frivolous, vexatious, or in bad faith.

Because the regulator had been partially successful on the underlying motion and reasonably advanced a jurisdictional position on the remaining remedy issue, the conduct complained of did not meet that threshold.

The motion for costs was dismissed.

The appellant sought a stay pending appeal from a thoroughbred ruling arising from a positive post-race test for oxymorphone in a horse's urine sample.

The underlying ruling imposed a one-year trainer suspension, a $10,000 monetary penalty, educational requirements, access restrictions, and purse consequences.

The Registrar consented to a stay on the condition that the appeal be scheduled no later than April 17, 2026.

The Panel granted the stay on that condition.

This was an appeal to the Horse Racing Appeal Panel from a thoroughbred racing ruling arising from jockey interference approaching the finish of a race at Woodbine Racetrack, which resulted in the horse being placed from second to fourth.

The appellant had filed both a notice of appeal and a motion for a stay, and the stay was granted on consent.

Before the appeal was determined, the appellant requested to withdraw it and the Registrar consented.

The Panel acknowledged the withdrawal of the appeal on consent.

This was an appeal to the Horse Racing Appeal Panel from a thoroughbred racing ruling arising from interference during the stretch run of a race at Woodbine Racetrack.

The appellant had also brought a stay motion, which the Panel granted on consent.

Before the appeal was heard, the appellant requested to withdraw it and the Registrar consented.

The Panel acknowledged the withdrawal of the appeal on consent.

This was a regulatory appeal from a standardbred racing ruling imposing a 10-year suspension and a $40,000 monetary penalty for alleged prohibited-substance related misconduct and misleading inspectors.

Before the appeal was heard, the appellant first withdrew a stay motion and later requested withdrawal of the appeal on consent.

The Panel acknowledged the withdrawal of the appeal on consent.

No adjudication on the merits of the underlying ruling was made.