Dr. Robert McKenzie

The applicants, a horse owner and trainer, sought judicial review of a Horse Racing Appeal Panel (HRAP) decision upholding penalties for their horse testing above the permitted threshold for total carbon dioxide (TCO2).

They argued they were denied procedural fairness regarding disclosure of testing laboratory records, that the HRAP decision was unreasonable, and that the rule establishing the TCO2 threshold was ultra vires.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no breach of procedural fairness given the HRAP's efforts to mitigate late disclosure, concluding the HRAP's reliance on the testing evidence was reasonable, and holding that the rule was within the Registrar's statutory mandate to uphold the integrity of horse racing.

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 appellant, a standardbred licensee and trainer, appealed a ruling suspending him for 60 days and fining him $1,500 after his horse tested positive for a high TCO2 level.

The appellant argued that the testing equipment was obsolete, the laboratory and reagents were not federally licensed, and he received inadequate disclosure.

The Ontario Racing Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the testing program was legally established, the laboratory's equipment and procedures were reliable, and adequate disclosure was provided.

The panel upheld the fine and suspension, correcting an error regarding credited time served.

The standardbred licensee appealed a Director's Order immediately suspending his licenses and proposing a 10-year suspension and $100,000 fine after a horse he trained tested positive for the performance-enhancing drug DPO.

The Ontario Racing Commission found that the trainer responsibility rule is a strict liability offence and the licensee failed to demonstrate due diligence in protecting the horse from tampering.

The Commission varied the penalty, imposing a 10-year suspension and reducing the fine to $10,000.

The appellant, a standardbred licensee, appealed a 15-day suspension and $2,000 fine imposed after a horse he trained tested positive for the Class V drug procaine.

The appellant argued he administered the drug within prescribed guidelines and that a delayed retest showed levels within the legal limit.

The Ontario Racing Commission dismissed the appeal, finding the initial test result was accurate and above the allowable threshold, while the retest was likely affected by the deterioration of the sample over time.

As this was the appellant's second positive test within one year, the Commission varied the penalty to a 30-day suspension and a $1,500 fine in accordance with penalty guidelines.