Angela Holland

The applicant, an Official Veterinarian, sought judicial review of a decision by the Horse Racing Appeal Panel which found it lacked jurisdiction to hear her appeal of the Registrar's decision to rescind her approval.

The Divisional Court allowed the application, finding the Panel's decision unreasonable because it failed to consider Rule 24.01 of the Rules of Standardbred Racing, which explicitly provides a right of appeal to the Panel for any person aggrieved by a decision of the Registrar.

The matter was remitted to a differently constituted panel.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Proposal to suspend its liquor licence for 14 days due to overcrowding.

The appellant admitted to the overcrowding, which was a second offence, but requested a monetary penalty instead of a suspension.

The Tribunal found that a monetary penalty was inappropriate given the previous failure to deter the behaviour.

Balancing general deterrence, specific deterrence, and rehabilitation, the Tribunal ordered a 5-day licence suspension, to include the first Friday of a month, rather than the 10 to 12 days sought by the Registrar.

The appellant, a horse trainer, appealed a 5-year suspension and $20,000 fine imposed after two of his horses tested positive for aminorex.

The Ontario Racing Commission Panel found that while the absolute liability rule for positive tests prevailed, the appellant had exercised due diligence and no causal link or source for the aminorex could be established.

Consequently, the Panel allowed the motion to vary the penalty, setting aside the suspension and eliminating the fine in its entirety, while placing the appellant on probation for six months to permit ongoing investigations and out-of-competition testing.

Following a Divisional Court decision that quashed the original penalty for a lasix overage, the matter was referred back to the Ontario Racing Commission for redetermination.

The parties presented a joint submission for a $300 fine, noting that the Divisional Court found lasix overages were not covered by the Commission's Penalty Guidelines but rather the Uniform Classification Guidelines.

The Panel accepted the joint submission and imposed the $300 fine.

The appellant appealed a ruling for a violation of Rule 22.09 of the Rules of Standardbred Racing, alleging his horse caused interference during a race at Mohawk Raceway.

The Ontario Racing Commission panel reviewed the video evidence and testimony, finding that the appellant's horse came out too tight and did not leave enough clearance, causing another horse to break stride.

The appeal was denied and the judges' original decision was upheld.

The appellant, a former licensed owner of standardbred racehorses, appealed a ruling by horseracing judges that prohibited him from entering the restricted areas of an association as a guest.

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

The Administration failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that the appellant's frequency of visits constituted an abuse of the guest pass privilege or was contrary to the best interests of racing.

The appeal was allowed and the prohibition was set aside.

The appellant, a horse trainer, appealed the denial of a stay of her suspension following a positive test for levamisole.

The Ontario Racing Commission granted a restricted stay for four months to allow time for the split sample results and for the judges' hearing to take place, with existing probation terms continuing.

The appellant horse trainer appealed rulings imposing a $20,000 fine, a 5-year suspension, and a 2-year probation following two positive tests for the prohibited drug aminorex in his horses.

The panel found that while the absolute liability rule for positive tests prevailed, the appellant had exercised due diligence and no causal link or source for the aminorex could be established.

Consequently, the panel denied the appeals but varied the penalty, setting aside the remainder of the suspension and eliminating the fine entirely, while imposing a 6-month probation with conditions for ongoing testing.

The purses for the disqualified horses were ordered to be redistributed.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Stewards disallowing a claim of foul in a horse race.

The appellant argued that the winning horse interfered with his horse and that the winning jockey committed an urging violation.

The Ontario Racing Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that while interference occurred, it did not alter the order of finish, and the urging violation did not warrant a penalty or placing of the winning horse.

The appellant appealed a Director's Notice of Proposed Order refusing to issue him a Thoroughbred Licence and prohibiting him from applying for a licence for two years.

The refusal stemmed from an investigation into animal cruelty and the death by emaciation of two of the appellant's horses.

The Commission denied the appeal, finding that permitting the appellant to participate in racing would diminish the integrity of the industry, as he failed to demonstrate remorse or steps taken to rectify the conditions that caused the horses' deaths.

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.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Stewards disallowing a claim of foul in the Northern Dancer Stakes horse race.

The appellant sought to have the winning horse disqualified for interference and placed behind the appellant's horse.

The Ontario Racing Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that while interference did occur, it did not alter the finish of the race or improve the placing of the offending horse.

The appellant, a licensed horse trainer, appealed a ruling imposing a 15-day suspension and a $1,000 fine after a horse tested positive for prohibited substances.

The appellant argued he was misled about the urine sample and did not know how the horse ingested the drugs.

The Ontario Racing Commission dismissed the appeal, applying the trainer responsibility rule, which holds the trainer responsible unless they can demonstrate the prohibited substance came from another source.

The appellant failed to appear for his scheduled appeal hearing before the Ontario Racing Commission.

The panel adjourned the hearing peremptorily to a later date and imposed a $300 fine on the appellant for his failure to appear.

The appellant, a licensed jockey, appealed a ruling that rendered him ineligible to be licensed for failing to adhere to the conditions of his Post Violation Agreement.

The parties presented an Agreed Statement of Facts and Joint Submission on Disposition, proposing that the appellant sign a new two-year Post Violation Agreement with strict conditions, including unannounced testing and immediate suspension for any breach.

The Ontario Racing Commission accepted the joint submission and ordered the penalty as requested.

The appellant, a licensed jockey, appealed a 10-year suspension for possessing an electrical goading device in the jockey's quarters.

The Ontario Racing Commission accepted an Agreed Statement of Facts and Joint Submission on Disposition.

The appellant's penalty was reduced to a 5-year suspension, with 3 years stayed, resulting in a 2-year actual suspension, followed by 2 years of probation.

The appellant appealed the 90-day suspension of two horses following positive tests for Ractopamine.

An investigation revealed the positive tests were caused by contaminated feed, and the appellant was found blameless.

The Ontario Racing Commission applied the three-part test for a stay and found that extraordinary circumstances existed, the balance of convenience favoured the appellant, and the public interest was served.

The appeal was allowed, and the horses were deemed eligible to race immediately.

The appellant, a licensed owner, trainer, and driver, appealed a 45-day suspension and $2,500 fine imposed after his horse tested positive for TCO2.

The appellant argued the test was invalid because the veterinary technician who administered it had an expired licence.

The Ontario Racing Commission denied the appeal, finding that the technician's expired licence was a technical error that did not invalidate the test results or her qualifications.

The Commission also found no compelling evidence to further vary the penalty, noting the appellant's responsibility as a trainer for the horse's condition.

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

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

Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

Hiawatha Horse Park appealed a Director's Notice of Order regarding a substantial underpayment to its purse account.

The Ontario Racing Commission denied the appeal, finding that the track violated Standardbred Rule 7.16.02 by failing to remit funds legally due to the horse people.

The panel determined the underpayment amount to be $677,000.00 and upheld the original $5,000.00 fine.

Additionally, the panel imposed a $1,500.00 fine on the appellant for filing a frivolous appeal, noting the lack of preparation and evidence.