James Llewelyn Evans

The Ontario Harness Horse Association (OHHA) appealed a decision by the Director of the Ontario Racing Commission allocating Standardbred Revenue Allocation (SRA) marketing funds to both OHHA and the Central Ontario Standardbred Association (COSA).

The funds, totaling over $2.1 million, were held in trust by the Woodbine Entertainment Group after its contract with OHHA expired and it entered a new contract with COSA.

The majority of the panel denied the appeal, finding it had jurisdiction to hear the matter de novo and to interpret the underlying Memorandum of Understanding and Business Plan in the best interests of racing.

The panel concluded that COSA qualifies as a provincially recognized horsepersons' association and ordered the funds to be distributed proportionally between OHHA and COSA based on wagering levels and racetrack affiliations, subject to conditions on their use for marketing.

A dissenting member would have allocated all funds to OHHA.

The Ontario Harness Horse Association and Central Ontario Standardbred Association appealed an order of the executive director.

The Ontario Racing Commission panel issued procedural directions for an upcoming hearing, including notifying other industry parties to determine their participation.

The panel also scheduled a motion to quash a subpoena and ordered that the executive director's January 7, 2016 order be stayed until the conclusion of the hearing relating to the SRA funds.

The Appellants, licensed standardbred trainers and owners, appealed the suspension of their licences by the Deputy Director of the Ontario Racing Commission following their declarations of bankruptcy.

The Panel found that the Appellants violated Rule 3.09 of the Rules of Standardbred Racing by accumulating unpaid obligations, becoming bankrupt, and displaying financial irresponsibility.

The Panel upheld the suspensions of their original licences while they remain undischarged bankrupts, but permitted the Director to license them as Grooms to work for wages for another licensed participant.

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 appellant, a standardbred licensee, appealed a one-year suspension imposed for violating rules against misconduct, cruelty, and misleading investigators.

The allegations involved leaving a horse tied in full harness overnight without food or water, and subsequently subjecting it to an abusive training session as retribution for poor racing performance.

The Ontario Racing Commission dismissed the appeal, finding the evidence of mistreatment overwhelming and rejecting the appellant's denials.

The panel upheld the one-year suspension of all licensing privileges (except as a groom) and imposed a two-year probationary period with conditions.

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.

The appellant, a standardbred licensee, appealed a ruling by the Sudbury Judges suspending him for 45 days and imposing a $1,000 fine for inappropriately whipping and injuring a horse.

Following a judicial review that remitted the matter for a new hearing, the Ontario Racing Commission held a trial de novo.

The Commission found clear and convincing circumstantial evidence that the appellant inflicted severe welts on the horse with a whip.

The appeal was denied, and the penalty was increased to a 90-day full suspension, a $1,000 fine, two years of probation, and mandatory anger management.

The appellant, a standardbred licensee, sought a stay of a one-year suspension and retraining requirement imposed for horse welfare and integrity violations, pending his appeal.

The Ontario Racing Commission denied the motion, finding that the appellant failed to demonstrate extraordinary circumstances or a serious mitigating factor.

The Commission held that the balance of convenience and the public interest in protecting the health and welfare of horses strongly favoured denying the stay.

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.

The appellant, a standardbred licensee, appealed a decision of the Judges suspending him for 45 days and fining him $1,000 for maltreatment of a horse.

The horse was found with severe welts consistent with whipping.

The Ontario Racing Commission panel applied the balance of probabilities standard of proof and the reasonableness standard of review.

The panel found it reasonable to conclude the appellant caused the welts, given his history of temper and post-race whip use.

The appeal was denied, but the penalty was increased to a 90-day suspension (60 days stayed), a $1,500 fine, and mandatory anger management to serve as a stronger deterrent.

The licensee appealed a 45-day suspension and $1,000 fine for maltreatment of a horse.

A stay of the suspension had been granted pending the appeal.

The Ontario Racing Commission convened a hearing to determine whether the stay should be extended or terminated.

Upon hearing submissions from counsel, the Commission ordered that the stay remain in place until the rescheduled appeal hearing, on the condition that any interim rule infractions by the licensee would result in the automatic lifting of the stay.