Gerald Sternberg

A thoroughbred trainer appealed a Stewards' ruling that found him in violation of racing rules after his horse tested positive for Flunixin, a Class IV drug.

The trainer argued that a veterinary technician mistakenly administered Flunixin instead of the requested calcium gluconate.

The Commission dismissed the appeal on liability, finding that the trainer failed to establish a due diligence defence on a balance of probabilities, particularly given the lack of evidence regarding other injections and inadequate record-keeping.

However, the Commission varied the penalty, eliminating the $1,000 fine and reducing the suspension to 10 racing days.

Standardbred owner David Gage requested a hearing regarding the selection of starters for the Ontario Sires Stakes Gold Final following a dead heat for second place in an elimination heat.

The Ontario Racing Commission panel found that while the judges' decision to draw lots from all second-place finishers was open to them based on the rules, the general understanding of horsemen dictated that the draw should only be between the two horses in the dead heat.

The panel directed a new draw between the two dead-heated horses.

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 appellant, a standardbred owner/driver/trainer, appealed two rulings.

The first ruling imposed a $1,000 fine for making an inappropriate reference to an Austin Powers character during a television interview, which was found to be conduct prejudicial to the best interests of racing.

The second ruling imposed a fine, suspension, and probation for allegedly calling the judges 'idiots' following a hearing.

The Commission dismissed the first appeal, upholding the $1,000 fine.

For the second appeal, the Commission accepted the appellant's testimony that the remark was directed at another licensee, not the judges, and ordered him to provide a written apology clarifying the misunderstanding within seven days, failing which the appeal would be dismissed and the original penalties imposed.

The appellants, a standardbred owner/trainer and an owner/groom, appealed decisions of the Judges fining and suspending them for allegedly refusing to comply with directions, withholding information, and misleading investigators regarding the transfer of horses from a suspended trainer.

The Ontario Racing Commission allowed the appeal in part, finding that the Judges' directions were equivocal and the appellants did not knowingly withhold information.

However, the Commission upheld the finding that the appellants misled investigators by participating in a deceptive 'farming out' arrangement.

The fines and suspensions were reduced, and a related suspension of four horses was modified to allow their transfer to the appellants after a specified date.

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.

The appellants appealed the claiming of the horse STRANGER for $15,000 at Mohawk Raceway.

The Ontario Racing Commission granted the appeal, reversed and voided the claim, and ordered the horse returned to its recorded owners.

Standardbred owner Deborah Critchell appealed a ruling by the Ontario Racing Commission Judges that suspended the horse QUICKSTEP BLUECHIP pending an investigation into its bona fide ownership.

The Ontario Racing Commission panel heard evidence and disallowed the appeal, upholding the suspension.

Oral reasons were provided.

The appellants, a thoroughbred trainer and two owners, appealed a ruling that fined the trainer $1,000 and ordered the return of second-place purse monies after their horse failed to attend the TCO2 testing area.

The Ontario Racing Commission panel upheld the $1,000 fine against the trainer but ordered that the second-place purse monies be distributed to the owners.

The parties cross-appealed an arbitration decision regarding weekly income benefits and arbitration expenses following a motor vehicle accident.

The insured appealed the denial of weekly income benefits after September 5, 1994, and the refusal to adjourn the hearing to cross-examine the insurer's medical expert.

The insurer appealed the order requiring it to pay the insured's arbitration expenses, arguing that November 1996 amendments to the Insurance Act should have been applied.

The Director's Delegate dismissed both appeals, finding that the arbitrator's conclusions on benefits were supported by the evidence, the refusal to adjourn was a reasonable exercise of authority, and the new expense provisions did not apply retroactively to proceedings commenced before the amendments.

The insured was awarded $250 in appeal expenses for responding to the insurer's appeal.

The Applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received weekly income benefits until the Insurer terminated them.

The Applicant sought arbitration to reinstate benefits, claiming he was unable to return to his pre-accident employment as a construction carpenter due to soft tissue injuries.

The Arbitrator preferred the medical evidence of the Insurer's orthopaedic examiner, who opined the Applicant was fit to return to work, noting the Applicant's failure to undergo a recommended CT scan.

The claim for ongoing weekly income benefits was dismissed.

The Arbitrator also held that the new expense provisions under section 282(11) of the Insurance Act did not apply retroactively to arbitrations commenced before November 1, 1996, and awarded the Applicant his reasonable expenses under the former rules despite being unsuccessful.

The appellant, a professional football player, was cut from the respondent's team but continued to receive his guaranteed salary.

He subsequently signed a contract to play for another team in a different league without the respondent's permission.

When the new team folded, the appellant sued the respondent for the balance of his guaranteed salary.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellant's signing with another team constituted a breach of his contractual arrangement with the respondent, thereby relieving the respondent of any further obligation to pay the guaranteed salary.