Horse Racing Appeal Panel

The appellant sought a stay pending appeal from a thoroughbred racing ruling imposing a riding suspension for interference during a race.

The stay request was brought before the Horse Racing Appeal Panel after a notice of appeal and notice of motion were filed.

The Registrar consented to the requested relief.

The Panel granted the stay on consent.

The appellant sought a stay of a racing ruling pending appeal after a three-day jockey suspension and disqualification of his mount for interference during a race.

The registrar consented to the stay request.

The panel granted the stay on consent pending determination of the appeal.

The appellant sought a stay of a three-day jockey suspension and related race placing order pending an appeal from a thoroughbred ruling.

The ruling arose from interference during the backstretch run of a race at Woodbine Racetrack.

The registrar consented to the requested stay.

The panel granted the stay on consent.

The appellant sought a stay pending appeal of a standardbred ruling concerning the non-placing of a horse following an incident after the three-quarter pole, around the last turn, and into the head of the stretch.

The request for a stay was brought after racing officials determined that the race winner did not violate Standardbred Rule 18.08.02 and that no placings were required.

The Registrar consented to the stay request.

The Panel granted the stay on consent.

The appellant sought a stay pending appeal of a standardbred racing ruling imposing a $300 monetary penalty and a five-day driving suspension for a second Rule 22.19 violation within a 365-day period.

The request for a stay was consented to by the Registrar.

The Panel granted the stay on consent.

This was an appeal from a standardbred racing ruling imposing a 90-day suspension, a monetary penalty, and related consequences following a TCO2 violation involving a horse in the EIPH program.

After filing a notice of appeal and a motion for a stay, the appellant sent a written request to withdraw the appeal, and the Registrar consented.

The panel acknowledged the withdrawal on consent and lifted the previously granted stay.

The underlying regulatory penalties and disqualification consequences therefore remained operative.

The appellant sought a stay pending appeal from a standardbred racing ruling imposing a 90-day suspension, a monetary penalty, program completion requirements, access restrictions, horse ineligibility consequences, and race disqualification consequences following a TCO2 violation.

The decision records that the Registrar consented to a stay on condition that the appeal hearing be scheduled within 60 days of the decision.

The Panel granted the stay on that condition.

This was an appeal proceeding before the Horse Racing Appeal Panel arising from a disciplinary ruling issued to a licensed trainer for allegedly being obnoxious and disrespectful toward a race official at Woodbine Racetrack.

After filing a notice of appeal, the appellant filed a notice requesting to withdraw the appeal, and the Registrar consented.

The Panel issued an order acknowledging the withdrawal of the appeal on consent.

The underlying ruling imposed a $200 monetary penalty under the Thoroughbred Rules.

This order concerns a request to withdraw an appeal under the Horse Racing Licence Act arising from a standardbred ruling after a horse returned a TCO2 certificate above the allowable limit.

The appellant had filed both a notice of appeal and a motion for a stay, and the Panel had granted the stay before the withdrawal request was made.

The appellant later requested in writing that the appeal be withdrawn, and the Registrar consented.

The Panel acknowledged the withdrawal of the appeal on consent.

This was an appeal in a horse racing discipline matter arising from a monetary penalty and three-day riding suspension imposed on a jockey for crop-use violations during a race.

After filing a notice of appeal and requesting a stay, the appellant made an oral request to withdraw the appeal.

The registrar consented to the withdrawal.

The panel acknowledged the withdrawal of the appeal on consent.

The appellant sought to withdraw an appeal from a horse racing disciplinary ruling arising from a fourth violation of Rule 22.19 of the Rules of Standardbred Racing within twelve months.

The Registrar consented to the withdrawal.

The panel acknowledged the withdrawal on consent, lifted the previously granted stay, and directed that the decision and penalty in the ruling apply, including the revised suspension period.

The order also reflects a monetary penalty with a stayed portion and probationary consequences for any further violation.

The appellant sought a stay of a standardbred racing ruling imposing a 90-day suspension, a monetary penalty, access restrictions, educational requirements, horse ineligibility consequences, and race disqualification arising from a TCO2 violation.

The Registrar consented to a stay on the condition that the appeal be scheduled within 60 calendar days of the decision.

The Panel granted the stay on the stated condition and terms.

The appellant sought a stay pending appeal from a standardbred ruling arising from a TCO2 test above the allowable limit, which placed the horse on the Judges List and made it ineligible to race or enter for 30 days.

The Panel treated the motion as an unusual case because the appellant sought only to enter the horse before the expiry of the 30-day period, not to race it during that period.

Applying the Panel’s stay jurisprudence and the overarching interests of justice approach drawn from Livent v. Deloitte Touche, the Panel held that the key regulatory concern was preventing the horse from racing during the full 30-day period.

A stay was granted permitting entry before expiry of the period, provided the horse did not race until on or after April 26, 2026.

In a horse racing regulatory appeal, the appellant sought an adjournment of the scheduled appeal hearing and an extension of an existing stay of a trainer suspension and monetary penalty arising from a TCO2 violation.

The Registrar consented to both requests.

The Panel granted the adjournment and extended the stay to May 29, 2026.

The order was procedural and made on consent pending a future hearing date.

The appellant sought relief in a horse racing licence appeal arising from a standardbred racing ruling involving a TCO2 violation and related suspension, access prohibition, disqualification, and monetary penalty.

The panel addressed a registrar-requested adjournment of the scheduled appeal hearing and a related request to extend an earlier stay.

On consent, the panel granted the adjournment and extended the stay on condition that the hearing proceed no later than May 22, 2026.

The appellant requested a stay pending appeal of a standardbred ruling arising from a race interference finding and resulting placement change.

The registrar consented to the requested relief.

The Panel granted the stay on consent pending disposition of the appeal.

The appellant sought a stay of a standardbred racing ruling pending appeal.

The underlying ruling imposed a driver suspension and monetary penalty arising from a fourth violation within twelve months of the rule requiring both feet to be kept in the stirrups.

The Registrar consented to the requested relief.

The panel granted the stay on consent.

The appellant trainer appealed a 10-year suspension and $40,000 penalty arising from an out-of-competition test on a racehorse that yielded synthetic darbepoetin alfa.

The panel heard and decided only the threshold issue of whether the Certificate of Positive Analysis was valid, with the appellant attacking the chain of custody, laboratory standards compliance, shipping integrity, and the inability to promptly retest residual samples.

The panel held that the screening and confirmatory testing were properly performed, that the absence of a tamper-proof layer on shipment to the confirmatory laboratory did not undermine the reliability of the result, and that no actual or apprehended bias arose from identifying material in shipping documents.

The panel found clear, cogent and convincing evidence that the tested blood sample contained synthetic DPO and upheld the certificate, leaving the remaining issues in the appeal for later hearing.

The appellant appealed a thoroughbred ruling disqualifying her horse from a race after an interference incident near the quarter pole caused other horses to fall and unseat their riders.

The panel found the video evidence of limited assistance, found that only one witness asserted with certainty that the appellant's horse moved outward, and accepted the appellant's evidence without reservation.

The panel concluded that the Registrar had not met the required onus of proof.

The appeal was allowed and the purse was ordered redistributed on the basis that the horse finished third.

The appellant sought to overturn a standardbred racing ruling that found no interference in the homestretch following possible inward movement by another horse.

The Panel applied the racing rule prohibiting movement that forces another horse to shorten stride, change course, or otherwise impedes progress, and held that a placing change also requires a material effect on the race outcome.

Relying primarily on the race video and the evidence of a senior race official, the Panel found no measurable loss of stride, momentum, gait, or course by the appellant's horse.

The appeal was dismissed and the order of finish remained unchanged.