3 total
Judicial review of horse trainer's suspension for animal abuse dismissed as tribunal decision was reasonable.
The applicant, a licensed standardbred trainer, sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Racing Commission panel that found him guilty of animal abuse and imposed penalties including a 90-day suspension and a fine.
The panel had conducted a trial de novo following a previous successful judicial review by the applicant.
The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the panel applied the correct standard of proof and that its decision, based on circumstantial evidence, was reasonable.
The successful applicant on a spousal support motion was awarded $3,000 in costs on a partial indemnity basis.
The applicant sought costs of a motion heard on December 2, 2011 and reviewed on March 6, 2012 regarding spousal support and other family law matters.
The respondent argued that the costs submissions were untimely and that there was mixed success on the motion.
The court found that the applicant was the successful party on the primary issue of spousal support and was entitled to costs.
The court fixed costs at $3,000.00 inclusive of disbursements and applicable taxes on a partial indemnity basis, considering the factors set out in Rule 24(11) of the Family Law Rules.
Judicial review granted as the tribunal improperly applied a reasonableness standard instead of conducting a trial de novo.
The applicant, a licensed standardbred trainer, sought judicial review of a decision by a panel of the respondent commission, which upheld findings of guilt and increased penalties related to the treatment of a horse.
The applicant was entitled to a hearing conducted as a trial de novo.
The Divisional Court found that the panel fundamentally erred by treating the hearing as a review of the initial judges' decision and applying a reasonableness standard of review, rather than determining the charges on a balance of probabilities.
The application was granted, the decision set aside, and the matter remitted for a new hearing before a differently constituted panel.
