Jennifer Friedman

The appellant appealed the removal of 15 equids, the subsequent Keep in Care decisions, and a Statement of Account issued by Animal Welfare Services.

The Board found that the animals were in distress due to inadequate shelter, water, and food, and confirmed the removal and Keep in Care decisions.

The Board also granted a confidentiality order to protect the appellant's personal health information.

The Statement of Account was confirmed but reduced on consent to remove trailer layover costs.

The appellant requested a reconsideration of two Animal Care Review Board decisions that upheld the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector's decision to keep her animals in care and confirmed the Statement of Account.

The appellant argued that the Board violated procedural fairness, made errors of fact and law, heard false evidence, and failed to consider new evidence regarding her disability and alternative boarding facilities.

The Board dismissed the request, finding no breach of procedural fairness, no errors of fact or law, and that the proposed new evidence did not meet the test for admission as it could have been obtained prior to the original hearings.

The appellant, a horse trainer, appealed a 5-year suspension and $20,000 fine imposed after two of his horses tested positive for aminorex.

The Ontario Racing Commission Panel found that while the absolute liability rule for positive tests prevailed, the appellant had exercised due diligence and no causal link or source for the aminorex could be established.

Consequently, the Panel allowed the motion to vary the penalty, setting aside the suspension and eliminating the fine in its entirety, while placing the appellant on probation for six months to permit ongoing investigations and out-of-competition testing.

The appellant horse trainer appealed rulings imposing a $20,000 fine, a 5-year suspension, and a 2-year probation following two positive tests for the prohibited drug aminorex in his horses.

The panel found that while the absolute liability rule for positive tests prevailed, the appellant had exercised due diligence and no causal link or source for the aminorex could be established.

Consequently, the panel denied the appeals but varied the penalty, setting aside the remainder of the suspension and eliminating the fine entirely, while imposing a 6-month probation with conditions for ongoing testing.

The purses for the disqualified horses were ordered to be redistributed.

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 appellant, a standardbred licensee, sought a stay of an Order of Immediate Suspension pending the disposition of his appeal.

The Ontario Racing Commission denied the request for a stay, finding that the appellant failed to demonstrate extraordinary or mitigating circumstances through clear, cogent, and compelling evidence to overcome the Commission's no-stay policy.

The appeal was ordered to be heard expeditiously.

The appellant, a licensed standardbred trainer, appealed an immediate suspension and a proposed order of a two-year suspension and $15,000 fine issued by the Director of the Ontario Racing Commission.

The Administration alleged that the appellant continued to participate in racing as a shadow or hidden trainer through a former employee while his licence was suspended.

The panel found that the Administration failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that the appellant acted as a shadow trainer.

The immediate suspension was vacated and the notice of proposed order was dismissed.

The Appellants, licensed standardbred trainers and owners, applied for stays of Orders of Immediate Suspension and holds on their purse monies.

The suspensions and holds were issued following an investigation alleging they facilitated the participation of a suspended trainer in racing activities.

The Ontario Racing Commission denied the stay applications, finding a reasonable prospect of conviction based on circumstantial evidence, including telephone records and witness statements.

The Commission held that proceeding with the Notices was in the public interest and that the Appellants failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances justifying a stay.

The appellant appealed an Order of Immediate Suspension and a Notice of Proposed Order issued by the Director of the Ontario Racing Commission.

Following an oral decision in a related matter, the parties submitted a joint proposal.

On consent, the Commission ordered that the appellant withdraw his appeal with no costs, quashed the immediate suspension, and vacated the Director's proposed order.

The appellant applied for reinstatement of his standardbred racing licence, which was suspended for violating a Post Violation Agreement.

The appellant argued he used medical marijuana and it did not affect his judgment.

The Ontario Racing Commission denied the appeal because the appellant failed to provide a negative drug test as required by the agreement and lacked sufficient medical evidence regarding his capacity.

The Commission also ordered the appellant to pay $665.82 in outstanding monies advanced on his behalf.

The appellant, a licensed owner and trainer, appealed a Stewards' ruling imposing a 45-day suspension, a $1,500 fine, and a two-year probation after his horse tested positive for Acepromazine.

The Ontario Racing Commission accepted a joint submission on disposition, ordering a 45-day suspension (with 5 days stayed), a $1,500 fine (with $750 stayed), and a two-year probation with conditions including random searches and out-of-competition testing.

The appellants appealed Orders of Immediate Suspension issued by the Executive Director of the Ontario Racing Commission.

In this interim decision regarding disclosure, the Vice Chair reviewed unredacted notebook entries of an investigator to determine if further disclosure was required.

The Vice Chair concluded that the redacted portions contained information clearly irrelevant to the proceedings and ordered no further disclosure.

The appellant, a licensed horse racing participant, appealed a ruling and applied for a stay of his suspension pending the appeal.

The Ontario Racing Commission panel denied the application for a stay.

The appellants, standardbred licensees, appealed orders of immediate suspension issued by the Executive Director of the Ontario Racing Commission.

As a preliminary matter, the appellants sought a review of all redactions in the disclosure materials, including a Senior Judges Report and investigators' notebook entries.

The Vice Chair reviewed the unredacted materials and found that most of the redacted information was irrelevant.

However, the Administration was ordered to provide unredacted notebook entries for 17 days to the panel for review, and to review and disclose relevant information from four additional days of unredacted material.

The appellant, a licensed horse trainer, requested a hearing and a stay of an immediate suspension and proposed order of suspension issued by the Executive Director of the Ontario Racing Commission.

The suspension was based on allegations of acting as a hidden trainer.

The panel denied the request for a stay of the immediate suspension, finding that the public perception and available evidence justified maintaining the suspension pending the hearing.

The panel scheduled the hearing on the merits for July 2014 and declined to impose mandatory time limits on disclosure.

The appellant, a standardbred racehorse trainer, appealed a penalty imposed after his horse tested positive for a prohibited drug.

The positive test resulted from environmental contamination caused by the horse's groom, who took prescribed medication and frequently urinated in the horse's stall.

The Ontario Racing Commission found that the appellant established a defence of due diligence, as he took reasonable care and could not have reasonably foreseen the contamination.

The appeal was allowed in part; the $2,000 fine and two-year probation were maintained, but the six-month suspension was deleted.

The appellant applied for a reinstatement hearing after his horse racing licence was suspended in 2012.

The Ontario Racing Commission accepted a Post Violation Agreement on consent between the parties.

The appellant's licence was reinstated subject to the agreement, and a $1,000 fine was stayed pending compliance.

The appellant appealed a stewards' ruling that declared his horse a non-starter and refunded bets due to a starting gate malfunction.

The Ontario Racing Commission found that although the horse did not take advantage of the early opening of the gate, the gate had malfunctioned.

To maintain consistency with previous decisions regarding starting gate malfunctions, the Commission upheld the stewards' decision and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant, a licensed driver, trainer, and owner, appealed rulings imposing a suspension, fine, and probation after his horse tested positive for an excess level of total carbon dioxide (TC02).

The parties presented an Agreed Statement of Facts and a Joint Submission on Disposition.

The Ontario Racing Commission accepted the joint submission, ordering a 45-day suspension (already served), a $2,500 fine ($1,000 stayed), and two years of probation with conditions including random searches and out-of-competition testing.

The appellant, a horse trainer, appealed penalties imposed after two horses tested positive for aminorex, a Class I drug.

The panel heard expert testimony that the only known source of aminorex, other than direct administration, was through levamisole, which was not implicated here.

Given the absolute liability rule but the lack of a determined source for the drug, the panel adjourned the appeal for six months to allow for further investigation into other potential causal links and alternative measures for dealing with aminorex positives.

A conditional stay of the penalties was granted in the interim.