Bob Hutchins

The appellant, a standardbred owner/trainer, appealed a ruling suspending him for 180 days and fining him $5,000 after his horse tested positive for Phenylpropolamine.

The appellant argued the horse must have come into contact with the drug while in the retention barn.

The Ontario Racing Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the trainer is strictly liable for the condition of the horse and that the evidence did not establish that the horse was contaminated in the retention barn.

The appellant, a thoroughbred trainer, appealed a Stewards' ruling suspending him for 15 days and fining him $1,000 after his horse tested positive for Flunixin (Banamine).

The Ontario Racing Commission found that while the positive test was proven, the appellant established that he exercised all reasonable due diligence in protecting his horse.

The evidence showed he maintained strict control over medications and it was not standard practice to require trainers to install private security cameras.

The appeal was allowed, though the horse's disqualification from the race remained.

The Ontario Securities Commission held a hearing to determine whether Momentas Corporation and its founders, Howard Rash and Alexander Funt, violated the Securities Act by trading securities without registration.

Momentas raised over $7.8 million from the sale of convertible debentures using an in-house sales team.

The Commission found that Momentas acted as a market intermediary and could not rely on the accredited investor exemption.

Furthermore, Rash and Funt engaged in acts in furtherance of trades and, as de facto officers and directors, authorized Momentas' breaches of Ontario securities law.

A subsequent hearing was ordered to determine appropriate sanctions.

The appellant, a standardbred owner and trainer, appealed a Judges' Ruling that fined him $5,000 and suspended him for 6 months for a violation of Rule 22.38(b) due to an excess level of TCO2 in his horse.

The Ontario Racing Commission dismissed the appeal and upheld the penalty, noting the appellant's history of rule compliance issues, including a previous TCO2 positive test within the last year, medication errors, and financial responsibility violations.