Arlen K. Sternberg

The appellant, a standardbred licensee, appealed a ruling that retroactively suspended his horse and ordered the redistribution of purse monies following a confirmed positive test for Darbepoetin-alpha (DPO/EPO).

The Commission allowed the appeal, finding that the 90-day ineligibility rule cannot be applied retroactively and must commence on the date the Commission receives official notice of the positive test result.

As the appellant had already served a de facto suspension by agreeing not to race the horse, no further penalty was imposed and the purse monies were not required to be redistributed.

The applicant, a licensed standardbred horse trainer and owner, sought judicial review of an Ontario Racing Commission (ORC) decision that upheld Woodbine Entertainment Group's (WEG) refusal to allow him to enter horses to race unless he signed an Access Agreement.

The Divisional Court held that while WEG could impose track rules and require an Access Agreement, the ORC acted unreasonably in permitting WEG to insist on terms that purported to give WEG absolute unfettered power to exclude licensed participants without fault or procedural fairness.

The application for judicial review was granted in part, prohibiting WEG from excluding the applicant's horses solely for refusing to sign the current Access Agreement.

The defendant sought leave to appeal a $345,733 costs award made following a partial summary judgment motion in a wrongful dismissal action.

The plaintiff brought a cross-motion for leave to appeal the scale of costs.

The court granted the defendant's motion, finding that the magnitude of the costs award and the motion judge's lack of particulars in her reasons provided good reason to doubt the correctness of the order and raised issues of public importance regarding access to justice.

The plaintiff's cross-motion was dismissed as it did not raise matters of continued importance.

The appellant appealed an order of a motions judge that reversed a master's interlocutory order permitting the appellant to file a supplementary affidavit after cross-examinations were completed.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the motions judge erred in law by failing to apply the deferential standard of palpable and overriding error to the master's discretionary decision.

The court reinstated the master's order, holding that the supplementary affidavit was highly relevant, adequately explained, and caused no non-compensable prejudice.

The appellant, a standardbred licensee, appealed a decision of the Ontario Racing Commission Judges denying his horse entries at Mohawk for failing to sign the Woodbine Entertainment Group's Application for Access Rights.

The Judges had ruled that he must comply with track rules to enter horses.

The Ontario Racing Commission panel dismissed the appeal, with reasons to follow.

The plaintiff sought leave to appeal an order that reversed a master's decision granting leave to deliver a supplementary affidavit under Rule 39.02(2).

The motions judge had held that the affidavit, based on information and belief, was inadmissible and that a reasonable explanation for delay was required.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal, finding good reason to doubt the correctness of the motions judge's ruling on the admissibility of hearsay evidence under Rule 39.01(4) and noting conflicting decisions on whether a reasonable explanation for delay is a strict prerequisite for granting leave.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Racing Commission approving a reduced number of race days for two racetracks in 2007.

The applicant alleged a breach of procedural fairness and an error in denying it party status.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application on the ground of undue delay, noting the applicant waited five months into the racing season to bring the application, which would cause substantial prejudice to the racetracks if the calendar were overturned.

The City of Toronto applied for judicial review of decisions by the Toronto Licensing Tribunal to continue, subject to conditions, the restaurant licences of four establishments with histories of public health violations.

The City argued the decisions were patently unreasonable and that the Tribunal breached the rules of natural justice by misunderstanding its jurisdiction, failing to provide adequate reasons, and interfering in the hearing.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Tribunal's decisions were supported by the evidence and that the hearings were conducted fairly without any breach of natural justice.

The Ontario Racing Commission reviewed applications from Flamboro Downs and Windsor Raceway for their 2007 live and simulcast race dates.

Despite opposition from the Ontario Harness Horse Association, which sought to maintain the previous year's number of live race dates, the Commission approved Flamboro Downs for 225 live race dates and Windsor Raceway for 111 live race dates, along with 364 simulcast days for both.

The Commission directed both tracks to provide detailed strategic marketing and business plans to address declining revenues and customer service issues.

The Ontario Racing Commission heard applications from three racetracks for 2007 live and intertrack race dates.

The Commission first denied the Ontario Harness Horse Association's application for party status, finding it was not directly affected by the racing schedule.

The Commission approved New Hiawatha Horse Park's application for 52 live race dates and 364 intertrack dates, subject to conditions regarding its tax appeals.

However, the Commission declined to approve the applications for Windsor Raceway and Flamboro Downs, finding their proposed substantial reductions in race dates were not in the public interest or the best interests of racing, and directed both tracks to file fresh applications with additional race dates.

The moving party, an owner of a horse that participated in the Maple Leaf Trot, brought a motion seeking an order to re-run the race or for compensation due to a starter error.

The starter had mistakenly flashed recall lights but let the race proceed, causing some drivers to take hold of their horses.

The Commission determined it had jurisdiction to order a re-run and to refund entry fees, but not to assess damages for lost purse opportunities.

However, the Commission declined to exercise its jurisdiction to hold a hearing for the requested relief, finding it contrary to the public interest and unfair to other participants who had already competed.

The Ontario Racing Commission reconvened a hearing regarding an application by Windsor Raceway Inc. for 2006 race dates.

The Commission had previously approved 125 race dates conditional upon the addition of a minimum of six days.

The applicant submitted a revised application for six additional dates, which the Commission approved, bringing the total to 131 approved race dates for Windsor Raceway.

Windsor Raceway Inc. applied to the Ontario Racing Commission for 125 live race dates and 364 simulcast dates for the 2006 season.

The Ontario Harness Horse Association made submissions advocating for more summer racing dates.

The Commission conditionally approved the application, ordering the applicant to submit a revised schedule adding a minimum of six live race dates to address concerns about the reduction in racing opportunities.

Windsor Raceway applied for 124 live race dates for the 2005 calendar year, following two previously deficient applications.

The Ontario Harness Horse Association opposed the reduction, arguing for a return to the 153 dates approved in 2003 and 2004.

The Commission criticized both parties for focusing on self-interest rather than the public interest.

The Commission ultimately approved a schedule resulting in 131 live dates and 1,965 live racing opportunities, emphasizing the need to resume racing and consider the broader public interest.

Windsor Raceway applied to the Ontario Racing Commission for 124 race dates for the 2005 calendar year.

The Commission noted the public interest required resuming live racing at Windsor as soon as possible following a stoppage.

The Commission approved the application subject to two conditions: Windsor Raceway must add seven additional race dates to total 131 days, and there must be an average of fifteen live races per race date.

If the conditions were not accepted by the specified deadline, the application would be rejected.

The applicant, a professional horse trainer, sought judicial review of a penalty imposed by the Ontario Racing Commission after one of his horses tested positive for a Class III drug.

The applicant argued that the Commission denied him procedural fairness by refusing to disclose past penalty rulings, that the panel's rejection of a joint settlement proposal created a reasonable apprehension of bias, and that the imposed penalty of a 10-month suspension and $50,000 fine was patently unreasonable.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no denial of fairness, no reasonable apprehension of bias as the panel maintained an open mind, and that the penalty was reasonable given the applicant's prior disciplinary record.

The applicant, a licensed standardbred trainer, sought to have the Ontario Racing Commission review and rescind a trespass notice issued by the respondent racetrack operator, which excluded him from racing at its facilities following an equine drug violation.

The Commission first determined it had jurisdiction to review the exercise of the racetrack's private property rights where the issue primarily involved horse racing and the public interest.

On the merits, the Commission found that the racetrack's decision to exclude the trainer was a reasonable exercise of its property rights aimed at protecting the integrity of its racing product and business interests.

The Commission declined to modify the trespass notice and dismissed the trainer's request for reinstatement.

The appellant, a veterinarian, appealed a decision of the Executive Director suspending him for two years and fining him $20,000 for violations of the Rules of Standardbred Racing.

At the commencement of the appeal hearing, the appellant brought motions requesting that the Commission Chair and another Commissioner recuse themselves from the panel.

The panel granted the motion for the Chair to recuse herself, dismissed the motion regarding the other Commissioner, and ordered that the hearing be rescheduled with the Vice Chair presiding.

The applicant requested a hearing after his nominations for several horse racing events were rejected by the Woodbine Entertainment Group for being postmarked after the deadline.

The applicant argued that the delay was due to a snowstorm and postal issues.

The Ontario Racing Commission found it had jurisdiction to hear the matter but declined to waive the breach of the postmark rule, emphasizing the need for objectivity and certainty in the nomination process.

The nominations were not accepted.

The applicant sought judicial review of the Ontario Racing Commission's decision to suspend him for 74 days and fine him $1,000 for an equine drug violation.

The applicant argued he was denied procedural fairness and that the penalty was unreasonable, as the respondent treated his prior offences differently than in a previous hearing.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no denial of procedural fairness and concluding that the penalty was within the applicable guidelines and not patently unreasonable.