Colleen E. Butler

Aubrey Friedman brought a motion for interim relief to require Woodbine Entertainment Group (WEG) to accept entries and nominations for his horses, after an expedited hearing could not be arranged as originally contemplated.

The Ontario Racing Commission panel found that the delay in arranging the expedited hearing constituted a significant change in circumstances that should not prejudice Friedman.

The panel ordered that Friedman's entries must be accepted by all Ontario racetracks for Ontario sired events, provided they meet qualifying standards, pending the hearing on the merits.

The applicant, a standardbred owner, sought an interim stay of a suspension imposed by Woodbine Entertainment Group (WEG) after his horses tested positive for EPO, a performance-enhancing drug.

The suspension prevented him from nominating horses for WEG stakes races.

The Ontario Racing Commission denied the interim relief, finding that while there was a serious issue to be tried, the applicant failed to establish irreparable harm, as the harm was a result of his own business decision to retain the horses despite the suspension.

The balance of convenience heavily favoured WEG's right to protect the integrity of its racing product.

In a separate matter, the Commission upheld a $1,500 fine against a standardbred licensee but reduced his suspension to 13 days.

Standardbred licensee William Elliott appealed a decision by Woodbine Entertainment Group (WEG) to disallow his horses' entries into stakes races after he received a second TCO2 positive test.

He also appealed the judges' refusal to immediately transfer his horses to new owners.

The Ontario Racing Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the judges' normal process for investigating trainer transfers should not be circumvented.

The Commission further held that WEG appropriately exercised its discretion under its rules to refuse the entries, and the Commission would not interfere in what was essentially a private contract dispute absent an overriding public interest.

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 appellant, a racing association official, appealed a $500 fine imposed by the Stewards for failing to comply with a Steward's direction.

The dispute arose when the appellant instructed his staff to pull the entry of a horse that was on the veterinarian's list and therefore ineligible to race, contrary to the Steward's instruction to leave the entry in until the Board of Stewards could rule on it.

The Panel found that the horse was clearly ineligible and the trainer agreed, meaning there was no dispute for the Board to resolve.

Given the appellant's blemish-free record and the circumstances, the appeal was allowed.

The applicant, a licensed standardbred trainer, applied for a hearing regarding a requirement imposed by Woodbine Entertainment Group (WEG) that his horses be placed in a retention barn prior to racing.

The Commission convened a panel to determine if it had jurisdiction to hold the requested hearing.

The Commission found that WEG's requirement arose from its own policies and private contracts, not from a delegated power under the Racing Commission Act, 2000, meaning there was no statutory entitlement to a hearing under s. 11(7).

While the Commission had discretion to hold a hearing under s. 7(k), it declined to do so, finding that the specific application of the retention policy to the applicant did not engage the public interest or involve the good of horse racing generally.

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.