Don Bourgeois

The Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario held a pre-hearing conference regarding a Notice of Proposal to suspend the liquor licence of Blue Nile Restaurant Ltd. The licensee failed to appear despite being duly notified.

The Board ordered the licensee to disclose its witness list and evidence summaries to the Registrar at least 10 days before the scheduled hearing.

At a pre-hearing regarding a Notice of Proposal to suspend a liquor licence, the Board of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario ordered the licensee and the Registrar's Representative to disclose witness lists, evidence summaries, and other required disclosure ten days prior to the scheduled hearing date.

A pre-hearing tele-conference was held regarding a Notice of Proposal to suspend the liquor licence of Club Frequency Inc. The Board ordered the Licensee to disclose its witness list and summaries to the Registrar 10 days before the hearing.

The Registrar was also ordered to complete any further disclosure 10 days before the hearing, excluding witness statements for civilian witnesses.

Winrac Developments Inc. applied to the Ontario Racing Commission to vary the 2004 Race Day schedule for Woodstock Raceway and to amend the 2004 Backstretch Improvement Plan regarding the paddock.

The Commission approved the amended business plan and reconfirmed the race date schedule on consent.

The Commission also ordered that the Stakes barn floor be properly covered to ensure safety prior to May 28, 2004, and warned of severe penalties for failure to comply with the amended business plan.

The appellants, a standardbred owner/trainer and an owner/trainer/driver, appealed Judges' Rulings suspending them for two years and imposing fines of $10,000 and $50,000 respectively for violations of the Rules of Standardbred Racing.

The violations involved a scheme of hidden ownership where racehorses were transferred to avoid the consequences of a suspension and child support enforcement proceedings.

The Ontario Racing Commission upheld the findings of liability, concluding the transfers were not bona fide and the appellants misled investigators.

However, the Commission allowed the appeal on penalty, reducing the suspensions to three months and the fines to $3,000 each, considering the appellants' ability to pay and the statutory public interest.

The applicant, a thoroughbred licensee, sought reinstatement of his licence after it was suspended for failing to comply with a previous condition.

The Ontario Racing Commission granted the request and ordered the licence reinstated, subject to strict conditions including continued participation in rehabilitation programs, monthly progress reports, and mandatory drug testing.

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 applicant's licences were suspended pending a negative urine sample and an appearance before the Ontario Racing Commission.

The applicant requested reinstatement of his licences.

The Commission ordered that the licences remain suspended until the applicant successfully completes an acceptable substance abuse program.

Upon reinstatement, the applicant must submit to drug testing when competing and will be subject to a 12-month probationary period.

The applicant's licences as an owner, driver, and trainer were suspended pending his appearance before the Ontario Racing Commission after failing to provide a negative urine sample.

Following a hearing to consider his request for reinstatement, the Commission ordered that his licences remain suspended until June 30, 2004.

Upon reinstatement, he is required to present himself to the drug testing unit whenever competing and will be on probation for 18 months.

The licensee was suspended indefinitely by the Judges for refusing to provide a sample when requested at Windsor Raceway.

Following a mandatory hearing before the Ontario Racing Commission, the Commission reinstated the licensee's licence subject to the conditions set out in a previous ruling remaining in place indefinitely.

The licensee was also ordered to inquire with the Paddock Judge at every race whether the drug testing unit is present.

The applicant, a standardbred licensee, appealed a ruling of the Ontario Racing Commission.

The Commission ordered that the applicant may be licensed subject to strict conditions, including a maximum 18-month term, quarterly employment reports, random urine testing, and mandatory participation in a substance abuse program.

Any breach of the conditions would result in immediate revocation of the licence.

The appellant owner/trainer appealed a decision of the Industry Board of Appeal confirming the disqualification of his horse for causing interference during a race.

The Ontario Racing Commission reviewed video evidence and testimony from the stewards and jockeys, concluding that the appellant's horse impeded another horse, causing a chain reaction that resulted in a spill.

The appeal was dismissed and the disqualification affirmed.

A request by the Administration for a penalty for a frivolous appeal was denied by a majority of the panel.

The appellant, a standardbred owner and trainer, appealed a 30-day suspension and $1,000 fine for violating Rules 10.01(a) and (b) of the Rules of Standardbred Racing by possessing a hypodermic needle and injectables on the backstretch.

The Ontario Racing Commission dismissed the appeal, preferring the evidence of the security officer who witnessed the incident over the appellant's denials.

The Commission affirmed the penalty.

Thoroughbred owner Richard Jukosky appealed the results of the 8th race at Woodbine Racetrack on September 28, 2003, in which his horse finished second and Dr. John Chandler's horse finished first.

After hearing evidence from several witnesses, the Ontario Racing Commission dismissed the appeal and confirmed the original order of finish.

The appellant, a standardbred owner/driver/trainer, appealed a $600 fine imposed for failing to fulfill his driving engagements in six races.

The Ontario Racing Commission heard the appeal and granted it, with reasons forming part of the hearing transcript.

Thoroughbred owners appealed the decision of the Ontario Racing Industry Board of Appeal, which upheld the Stewards' decision to disqualify their horse from 2nd position and place it 7th for interference during a race at Woodbine Racetrack.

The Ontario Racing Commission heard evidence from several witnesses and dismissed the appeal.

The reasons for the decision were delivered orally and form part of the hearing transcript.

A thoroughbred jockey appealed a Stewards' Ruling fining him $500 for failing to persevere with his mount during a race, in violation of Rule 9.01 of the Rules of Thoroughbred Racing.

Following a hearing where evidence was presented by the jockey and another witness, the Ontario Racing Commission granted the appeal.

The reasons for the decision were delivered orally and form part of the hearing transcript.

The appellants, thoroughbred owners and trainers, appealed a Stewards' ruling denying their protest of a race outcome.

They alleged the winning horse carried less weight than required.

The Commission found that a typographical error in the condition book caused confusion, but the winning horse carried the correct weight according to the official Stakes book.

The Commission refused the appeals, noting that disqualifying the horse would constitute an undue hardship and would not be in the best interests of racing.

The Ontario Racing Commission heard applications for 2004 live and intertrack race dates from Rideau Carleton Raceway and Hiawatha Horse Park.

The Ontario Harness Horse Association opposed Rideau Carleton's application, arguing that the lack of winter racing negatively impacted horsemen and the local economy.

The majority of the Commission approved Rideau Carleton's application for 131 live race dates, finding no convincing evidence that winter racing would have a positive economic impact on the track or handle.

A dissenting opinion argued that the application should be rejected to encourage more live racing opportunities, consistent with the goals of the slots program.

A thoroughbred trainer appealed a stewards' ruling fining him $1,000 for being disrespectful and threatening a racing official.

At the hearing, the trainer admitted to being disrespectful and agreed the $1,000 fine was appropriate, but contested the finding that he had threatened the official.

The Commission dismissed the appeal, finding the sole remaining issue to be substantially hypothetical and moot, as a finding on the threat would have no practical effect on the penalty or outcome.