Daniel Joseph McMahon

The appellant, a thoroughbred racehorse trainer, appealed a positive test result and penalties imposed by the Stewards after his horse tested positive for Levamisole and Pemoline.

The appellant had administered a compounded medication containing Levamisole on the advice of his veterinarian for a legitimate therapeutic purpose, adhering to the recommended withdrawal time.

The Ontario Racing Commission panel found that while the positive test was proven as an absolute liability offence and a waiver of the breach was not appropriate, the appellant had established due diligence.

Considering the mitigating factors, including the appellant's excellent reputation and lack of intent to gain an unfair advantage, the panel allowed the appeal in part, reducing the penalty to a $1,000 fine and setting aside the suspension.

The appellant, a licensed thoroughbred horse trainer, appealed a Stewards' decision imposing a 60-day suspension and a $1,500 fine after his horse tested positive for excessive TCO2 levels.

The appellant argued that his Charter rights were breached and that he was denied procedural fairness because of a delay in releasing the residue blood sample for independent ion concentration testing, which he claimed could have exonerated him.

The Ontario Racing Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the economic sanctions did not engage Section 7 of the Charter.

The Commission also held that the delay in releasing the sample was not inordinate or oppressive, and the appellant was not significantly prejudiced, as the sample ultimately lacked sufficient plasma for the requested test.

The Stewards' penalty was affirmed.

The accused was charged with assaulting a security guard with intent to resist arrest and possessing hydromorphone, morphine, and marijuana for the purpose of trafficking.

Security guards employed by a private contractor observed the accused and a companion acting suspiciously in a Toronto Parking Authority parking lot and conducted an investigation.

The accused claimed the security guards planted the drugs and breached his Charter rights.

The court found that the Charter does not apply to private security guards, even when employed by a public entity.

The court rejected the accused's credibility regarding both the drug possession and the assault, finding him guilty on all counts.

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 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 accused, a loss prevention officer at a retail warehouse store, was charged with two counts of theft over $5,000 under s. 334 of the Criminal Code following a coordinated diversion theft captured on store security footage.

The Crown alleged the accused orchestrated the diversion by sending other employees away from the store entrance to allow accomplices to remove merchandise.

The evidence against the accused was entirely circumstantial and relied heavily on video recordings and witness testimony describing the accused directing staff away from the entrance moments before merchandise exited.

The court found the Crown proved that a theft exceeding $5,000 occurred but held that the evidence did not establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused participated in the theft.

Suspicion alone was insufficient to meet the criminal standard of proof.

The appellant, a long-time Clerk of the Scales for the Woodbine Entertainment Group, appealed a Notice of Proposed Order refusing to issue him a racing official licence.

The Ontario Racing Commission investigated allegations that the appellant failed to follow proper breathalyzer testing protocols for jockeys and accepted cash payments from jockeys.

The panel found that the appellant failed to adhere to breathalyzer protocols and that accepting payments from jockeys compromised the integrity of his position.

The appeal was denied, and the refusal to issue the licence was upheld.

The applicant, a licensed Racing Official, brought a motion requesting that the Vice Chair of the Ontario Racing Commission recuse himself from hearing an appeal against a Notice of Proposed Order to Refuse to Issue a Licence.

The applicant argued that a reasonable apprehension of bias existed due to the Vice Chair's prior rulings in related matters involving the applicant.

The Vice Chair granted the motion, finding that an objective person would entertain a reasonable apprehension of bias based on the cumulative impact of the necessary findings made in the prior rulings upon the live issues yet to be determined in the appeal.

The appellant appealed a Stewards' ruling that declared his horse a non-starter in a race at Woodbine due to a premature opening of the starting gate.

The Ontario Racing Commission allowed the appeal and restored the order of finish, finding that only the right-hand gate opened prematurely, preventing the horse from leaving early.

The Commission held that the mere opportunity to gain an unfair advantage is insufficient to declare a rule violation when the evidence confirms no such advantage was taken.

The appellant, a long-time racing official, appealed the Director's decision to deny his request for a conditional licence pending an ongoing investigation into his conduct as Clerk of the Scales.

The appellant had initially refused to cooperate with investigators but later complied.

The Ontario Racing Commission upheld the Director's decision, finding that the ongoing investigation into safety and potential improprieties was conducted in good faith and that denying the conditional licence was in the public interest.

The Commission also found that the appeal was not frivolous and declined to impose a penalty.

Two horse trainers appealed their 15-day suspensions and $1,000 fines after their horses tested positive for the Class IV drug ketoprofen following race victories.

The trainers argued they exercised due diligence by relying on veterinary advice and administering the drug outside the 48-hour guideline.

The Ontario Racing Commission denied the appeals, finding the trainers failed to provide clear, cogent, and compelling evidence to establish due diligence on a balance of probabilities, as expert evidence indicated the drug was likely administered within 48 hours.

However, considering their clean records and mitigating factors, the Commission varied the penalty by staying 10 days of each suspension while maintaining the $1,000 fines.

The appellant, a long-time Clerk of the Scales, appealed a ruling that made him ineligible to be licensed as an Association Official until he responded to an Ontario Racing Commission investigator.

The appellant had refused to provide a statement or requested documents during an ongoing investigation into his conduct, citing that his previous license had expired and he had already been interviewed multiple times.

The panel denied the appeal, finding that the Director has the statutory authority under the Racing Commission Act to require information from any person relevant to an investigation, and that the ongoing investigation was conducted properly in the public interest.

The appellants, a horse owner and a jockey, appealed the Stewards' rulings disqualifying their horse from first place and suspending the jockey for three days for alleged interference during a race.

The Ontario Racing Commission heard the appeal de novo.

Based on new video evidence and expert testimony, the Panel found that the jockey did not interfere with, intimidate, or impede any other horse, but merely moved into unoccupied space.

The Panel granted both appeals and restored the original order of finish.

The appellant, a licensed jockey, appealed a penalty of a 25-day suspension and a $2,500 fine imposed by the Stewards for gross and unsportsmanlike conduct following a race where he was unseated.

The appellant directed vulgar and degrading comments at another jockey in public and in the jockeys' quarters.

The Ontario Racing Commission varied the penalty, upholding the 25-day suspension but staying 18 days on conditions, and increasing the fine to $4,000, noting the appellant's remorse and apology as mitigating factors.

The appellant, owner of the horse MIA D'COUGAR, appealed a Stewards' ruling that disqualified the horse from first place and placed it fifth for interfering with another horse during a race.

The Ontario Racing Commission panel reviewed the video evidence and testimony, finding clear and compelling evidence that MIA D'COUGAR cut into the other horse's racing lane without clearing, causing the other jockey to check his mount.

The panel upheld the disqualification and placement under the Rules of Thoroughbred Racing.

The Administration's request for costs on the basis of a frivolous appeal was denied.

The appellant, a thoroughbred trainer, appealed the decision of the Ontario Racing Commission Industry Appeal Board disallowing a claim of foul.

The claim alleged interference between two horses during a race.

Based on new, unchallenged testimony showing contact occurred before the finish line, the Panel allowed the appeal in part and ordered the Stewards to conduct a new hearing to determine if the contact had a material impact on the race's outcome.

The applicant, whose owner/trainer licence had expired, applied for a new licence as a hot walker.

The Acting Director issued a Notice of Proposed Order to refuse the licence based on past conduct.

The applicant brought a motion seeking a stay of the Notice of Proposed Order.

The Commission dismissed the motion, finding that under the Racing Commission Act, it has no jurisdiction to interfere with the Director's decision to issue a Notice of Proposed Order until a full hearing on the merits has been held.

A thoroughbred jockey appealed a Stewards' ruling that suspended him for three days and disqualified his horse from first place due to alleged interference.

The Industry Appeal Board reversed the suspension but left the disqualification undisturbed.

On a de novo hearing before the Ontario Racing Commission, the Panel found that the jockey did not breach any racing rules and that the interference was caused by another jockey's dangerous attempt to pass on the inside going into a turn.

The Panel allowed the appeal and ordered the original order of finish restored.

The appellant, a thoroughbred jockey, appealed the penalty imposed by the Stewards for assaulting another licensee with a weapon in the jockeys' quarters.

The original penalty was a 60-day suspension and a $5,000 fine.

The Ontario Racing Commission allowed the appeal as to penalty, substituting a $2,500 fine and a 5-day suspension, which was stayed for 6 months on the condition of no similar altercations.