Angela Holland

The appellant, a standardbred licensee, appealed a one-year suspension and $5,000 fine imposed after his horse tested positive for methamphetamine and other drugs.

The appellant argued that the penalty was too harsh due to mitigating circumstances, noting that his brother, who had a history of substance abuse, had cared for the horse.

The Ontario Racing Commission found that while the violation was one of absolute liability, the mitigating factors—including the appellant's cooperation, clean record, and remorse—warranted a reduction.

The appeal was allowed, the suspension was reduced to two months with the remainder stayed, and the fine was reduced to $2,500.

The appellant, a standardbred licensee, appealed a ruling suspending him for two years followed by two years of probation for committing an act of cruelty to a horse.

The horse was found lame with a horseshoe nail driven deep into its hoof, ultimately requiring euthanasia.

The Ontario Racing Commission panel reviewed circumstantial evidence, including the appellant's motive, opportunity, and expertise as a blacksmith, as well as his prior harassment of the horse's owner.

Applying the balance of probabilities standard, the panel concluded the appellant was responsible for the injury and denied the appeal.

The licensee appealed to the Ontario Racing Commission to upgrade his conditional trainer's private licence to a public owner/trainer's licence.

He argued that it was difficult to find employment as a private trainer and he was unwilling to work as an assistant trainer.

The Administration opposed the request, noting that the licensee was currently under suspension for a positive drug test.

The Panel denied the request, finding that economic hardship is not a sufficient reason for re-licensing and that the request bordered on frivolous given his current suspension.

Great Canadian Gaming Corporation (GCGC) appealed the terms and conditions of its racetrack licences for Flamboro Downs and Georgian Downs, which required cooperation with financial examinations of GCGC and its associated companies.

The Ontario Racing Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the Director has the jurisdiction to impose such conditions under the Racing Commission Act.

The panel held that full financial disclosure of the parent company is necessary to understand the operations of the subsidiaries and to properly discharge the Director's regulatory duties.

The licensee appealed the denial of a stay of rulings that fined him $5,000, suspended him for one year, suspended several of his horses, and held purse monies pending a court injunction.

The Ontario Racing Commission panel dismissed the appeal and denied the stay, citing the seriousness of the conduct, the licensee's prior probation for anger management, and the negative public perception of granting a stay.

The appellants, Michael Manders and Kelly Lester, appealed Notices of Proposed Orders to revoke their licenses for failing to disclose criminal records and an incident involving another licensee on their applications.

The Ontario Racing Commission dismissed Manders' appeal but varied the penalty to a one-year suspension with conditions upon reapplication.

Lester's appeal was dismissed, and her license was revoked.

The appellants were also ordered to pay $1,000 in costs thrown away for failing to appear at a previous hearing.

The licensee appealed a ruling that fined him $300 and suspended him for one day for excessive use of his crop during a thoroughbred race.

At the hearing, the licensee's agent advised that the licensee wished to withdraw his appeal and serve his penalty.

The Administration recommended that the appeal be withdrawn without a cost penalty due to a recently completed review of the urging rules.

The Panel agreed and allowed the withdrawal without costs.

The appellant, a thoroughbred jockey, appealed a ruling that fined him $300 and suspended him for one racing day for raising his hand above his head while urging his mount, in violation of the Rules of Thoroughbred Racing.

Given a recent review of the urging rules and recommendations by the ORC Committee of Inquiry, the Administration did not dispute the appeal.

The Panel ordered that the penalty be withdrawn.

The appellant, a thoroughbred jockey, appealed a ruling that fined him $300 and suspended him for one racing day for raising his hand above his head while urging his mount.

Given a recently completed review of the urging rules and subsequent recommendations of the ORC Committee of Inquiry, the Administration did not dispute the appeal.

The Panel ordered that the penalty be withdrawn.

The appellant, a thoroughbred jockey, appealed a ruling that fined him $500 and suspended him for three racing days for excessive urging (using the riding crop more than three times in succession) during a race.

The Ontario Racing Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the video evidence clearly showed five successive hits without giving the horse time to respond, in violation of the rules.

The appellant, a thoroughbred jockey, appealed a ruling that fined her $500 and suspended her for three days for violating the urging rules by raising her hand above her shoulder while striking her mount.

At the hearing, the Administration agreed to withdraw the penalty in light of a recently completed review of the urging rules and subsequent recommendations of the ORC Committee of Inquiry.

The panel ordered the penalty withdrawn.

The licensee, a standardbred owner/trainer, failed to present himself to provide a sample for random drug and alcohol testing, resulting in a suspension.

At the reinstatement hearing, the Ontario Racing Commission emphasized the seriousness of failing to report for random testing.

The Commission ordered the licensee to pay a $500 fine, serve a suspension until February 20, 2011, and enter into a one-year post-violation agreement.

The licensee appealed a condition of a stay of his suspension for cruelty to a horse, which prohibited him from attending the grounds of Rideau Carleton Raceway without permission of the Judges.

The Ontario Racing Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the condition was reasonable and that the licensee had not demonstrated that he had been unreasonably refused permission to attend the grounds for specific purposes.

The licensee, a thoroughbred trainer, requested a stay of a Director's ruling that limited his licence to assistant trainer and placed him on probation for two years.

The Administration consented to the stay on the condition that a hearing on the merits be held no later than March 4, 2011.

The Chair of the Ontario Racing Commission granted the stay on those terms.

The licensee, Bruno Schickedanz, requested a stay of a Director's ruling that suspended his owner's licence for 12 months and imposed an $8,000 fine.

The Administration consented to the stay on the condition that a hearing on the merits be held no later than March 4, 2011.

The Chair of the Ontario Racing Commission granted the stay on those terms.

The appellant, a standardbred licensee, appealed a 5-day suspension and $500 fine for failing to keep a line in each hand for the entire race, contrary to Rule 22.23.04 of the Rules of Standardbred Racing.

The Ontario Racing Commission allowed the appeal, finding that while the violation occurred, the driver was clearly celebrating a victory and did not intend to violate the rule.

Under Rule 22.23.05, the Commission determined that no penalty was warranted.

The appellant, a standardbred licensee, appealed a ruling that downgraded his driving licence to a 'C' category, placed him on probation, and required anger management following an altercation with another licensee.

The Ontario Racing Commission denied the appeal, finding that the downgrade was appropriate to protect the safety of drivers and horses and the integrity of harness racing, given the appellant's record of driving violations.

The licensee, a thoroughbred jockey, appealed a suspension issued after he tested positive for marijuana, violating his post-violation agreement.

The Ontario Racing Commission accepted a joint recommendation in part, varying the penalty to impose a $500 fine, a 12-month suspension with 10 months stayed, 40 hours of community service, and a two-year extension of his post-violation agreement.

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.