Luisa J. Ritacca

The appellant, a standardbred owner and trainer, appealed to the Ontario Racing Commission regarding a violation of the Rules of Standardbred Racing.

The parties presented a joint submission on penalty.

The Commission accepted the joint submission, imposing a four-month full suspension of the appellant's licences, followed by a one-year probation period requiring attendance at AA meetings and submission to random drug testing.

The appellant, a thoroughbred licensee and trainer, appealed the decision of the Ontario Racing Industry Board of Appeal upholding the Stewards' disqualification of his horse from second to fifth place due to interference during a race.

The appellant argued that another horse caused the interference by taking away running room.

The Ontario Racing Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant's horse shied, causing the immediate interference, and that the other horse maintained a permissible path.

The Stewards' decision was upheld.

The Member, a teacher, faced allegations of professional misconduct and incompetence following two unsatisfactory performance appraisals.

The College withdrew the professional misconduct allegations.

Based on an Agreed Statement of Facts and a plea of no contest, the Discipline Committee found the Member incompetent due to deficiencies in assessment practices, record keeping, curriculum planning, and communication.

The Committee accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordering a suspension of up to two years and imposing conditions requiring the completion of courses in classroom management and instructional strategies, as well as a satisfactory performance appraisal upon return to teaching.

The licensee, a standardbred owner/driver/trainer, appealed a Judges' ruling that fined him $1,500, suspended him for 120 days, and placed him on probation for two years for failing to provide a proper urine sample.

The licensee provided urine samples that registered below the required 90 degrees Fahrenheit on the temperature strip.

The Commission accepted expert evidence that samples below this temperature indicate alteration or substitution.

The Commission found the licensee failed to provide a proper sample and dismissed the appeal, affirming the penalty.

The appellants, an owner/trainer, owner/groom, and hotwalker, appealed Stewards' Rulings finding them in violation of Rule 15.11.1 of the Rules of Thoroughbred Racing for uttering offensive and racial remarks and threatening another licensee.

The Ontario Racing Commission dismissed the appeals, upholding the findings and penalties, which included fines and a 30-day suspension for the owner/trainer.

The Commission accepted the evidence of the threatened licensee and found the appellants' denials lacked credibility.

Standardbred Licensee David MacNabb requested a hearing before the Ontario Racing Commission regarding the Executive Director's Notice of Proposed Order to refuse to issue a licence.

After hearing from both parties and witnesses, the Commission confirmed the Executive Director's Notice of Proposed Order to refuse to issue a licence.

The Commission provided oral reasons for its decision on the record.

Standardbred owner Rick Cauvier requested a hearing regarding a Notice of Proposed Order to revoke his licence.

The Ontario Racing Commission confirmed the Executive Director's decision to revoke the licence, but delayed the effective date to allow Mr. Cauvier to sell or transfer his horses with the prior consent of the judges at Rideau-Carlton Raceway.

The appellant, a standardbred licensee, appealed a suspension under Rule 6.38 of the Rules of Standardbred Racing.

Following an adjournment to allow the appellant to retain counsel, the Ontario Racing Commission heard the appeal based on an Agreed Statement of Facts.

The Commission reinstated the appellant's driver's licence subject to a 180-day suspension and a one-year probation period.

During probation, the appellant must submit to random drug testing, with any positive or improper sample resulting in an immediate full suspension.

The defendants appealed a jury's damages award.

Both parties acknowledged that the damages awarded by the jury were so high as to justify appellate intervention.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and substituted lower pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage awards for the respondents.

On consent, no order for costs was made.