David Wayne Carroll, 2026 CanLII 30849

Horse Racing Appeal Panel

10 Carlson Court Suite 400 Toronto, ON M9W 6A2

Comité d’appel des courses de chevaux

10, Carlson Court Bureau 400 Toronto, ON M9W 6A2

HORSE RACING APPEAL PANEL

TORONTO, ONTARIO – MARCH 10, 2026

SB HRAP 05006 2026

NOTICE OF DECISION

IN THE MATTER OF THE HORSE RACING LICENCE ACT, S.O. 2015 C. 38 Sched. 9;

AND IN THE MATTER OF AN APPEAL BY DAVID WAYNE CARROLL

OF STANDARDBRED RULING NUMBER 3436799

Date of Issue:

March 10, 2026

Horse Racing Appeal Panel (Panel):

Dr. John Hayes, Member

Appellant:

David Wayne Carroll

Appellant’s Representative:

Brian Tropea

Registrar’s Representative:

Fred Brethour

Decision:

The Panel grants the appeal, as set out below.

WHEREAS David Wayne Carroll (“CARROLL”) is licensed with the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario (“Commission”) as a Veterinarian, Licence Number V56902;

AND WHEREAS on November 3, 2025, Commission Racing Officials issued Standardbred Ruling Number 3436799 as a result of AGCO Inspection Reports 2977541 and 2964726;

AND WHEREAS following careful review of the AGCO inspection reports, related Canadian and provincial veterinary regulations and consideration of CARROLL's professional standing and cooperation throughout the inspection process, a monetary penalty of $3000.00 was issued for violation of Standardbred Rules 6.46.01(b),(c),(d) and (e) in addition to a $500.00 monetary penalty for violation of Standardbred Rules 8.14(ii), (iii) and (iv), for a total monetary penalty of $3500.00;

AND WHEREAS on November 18, 2025, CARROLL filed a Notice of Appeal and a Notice of Motion requesting a stay with the Panel to which the Registrar consented;

AND WHEREAS on December 23, 2025, the Panel granted the motion for a stay, on consent;

AND WHEREAS on February 11, 2026, the Panel convened to hear the appeal, reserving its decision;

TAKE NOTICE that the Panel grants the appeal, for the reasons set out below.

DATED on this 10th day of March, 2026.

Dr. John Hayes, Member

Horse Racing Appeal Panel

DECISION – WAYNE CARROLL

Thank you to Mr. Brethour and Mr. Tropea for their strong advocacy. Also thank you to witnesses, Aaron Sorensen, Emma Pote and Dr. Wayne Carroll for providing cogent testimony. Much appreciation to the HRAP Secretariat for facilitating this proceeding.

THE VIOLATIONS

Standardbred Ruling 3436799 dated November 3 2025

As per Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario (AGCO) reports #2977541 and #2964726, Dr. Wayne Carroll was found in violation of AGCO Standardbred Rules 6.46.01(b), (c), (d), and (e), with a monetary penalty of $3000.00, and 8.14 (ii), (iii), and (iv), with a monetary penalty of $500.00.

THE RULES

6.46.01 - No person shall possess or attempt to possess, administer or traffic in a drug, substance or medication, or anything held out to be a drug, substance or medication for a horse

ii. which has not been labelled for veterinary use under the Food and Drugs Act ( Canada ) or, if labelled for human use under the Food and Drugs Regulations, has not been prescribed by a veterinarian after conducting an examination of the horse and determining that the drug, substance or medication is used only for that horse in accordance with the prescription issued by the veterinarian; and/or

iii. which may endanger the health and welfare of the horse or endanger the safety of a driver; and/or

iv. which is not labelled or accurately labelled with the contained drug, substance, medication or active ingredient; and/or

v. which may adversely affect the integrity of racing.

For purposes of this section...notwithstanding…b, a veterinarian may possess the drug, substance or medication other than erythropoietin...if the possession is in the ordinary course of the practice of veterinary medicine for purposes of prescribing or administering the drug, substance or medication for the treatment of a horse.

Rule 8.14

A veterinarian who dispenses a drug or medication shall label the container in which the drug or medication is dispensed with the following information:

ii. date and quantity prescribed;

iii. name and address of the dispensing vet;

iv. name of the horse for which it is prescribed;

In the event that a drug or medication is to be prescribed to multiple horses from a single container, such container shall be marked Barn Use and will be exempt from items ii and iv above and replaced by a log to include horse name, date and quantity prescribed.

THE EXHIBITS

1 - Registrar Book of Documents

2 - Canadian Pari-Mutuel Agency Elimination Guideline Document

THE WITNESSES

For AGCO, Aaron Sorensen, Racing Inspector with the Equine Drug Unit and SR. Racing Official, Emma Pote. For the appellant, Dr Wayne Carroll on his own behalf.

BACKGROUND TO THE VIOLATIONS

From examination-in-chief is the following:

Mr. Sorensen attended the Gerald Lilley farm for an unannounced inspection on December 30 2024. He observed a used bottle of First Choice Equine P-Block with a label only stating Shedden Veterinary Services. Mr. Lilley said it had been dispensed by Dr Carroll of Shedden Veterinary Services for Barn Use in 2023. Mr. Sorensen confiscated the bottle because First Choice products were on the AGCO radar as not approved by Health Canada and not containing a Drug Identification Number. He believed the product was in violation of SB Rule 6.46.01. Mr. Sorensen also believed that the incomplete labelling i.e. no vet's name, date dispensed, nor horse-client referenced contravened SB Rule 8.14. Subsequently a sample of the bottle's contents was sent to Merieux NutriSciences Laboratory for analysis. The resulting report said the bottle contained approximately 200 ng/ml of aminocaproic acid, trade name Amicar.

On January 10 2025, along with Dr. Pamela Chesterfield, AGCO Manager of Veterinary Services, Mr. Sorensen conducted an inspection of Dr. Carroll's work truck and observed no violations. Then they inspected the medication storage room at Shedden Veterinary Services where they found one unopened bottle of P-Block. The contents of this bottle, upon confiscation, were tested by Merieux NutriSciences Laboratory and also found to contain approximately 200 ng/ml of aminocaproic acid, which is a CPMA controlled drug used to treat racehorse bleeding. Mr. Sorensen testified as follows that in a later recorded statement by Dr. Carroll:

a) He didn't know that P-Block contained unlabelled aminocaproic acid;

b) He was aware of an AGCO July 2024 notification through Standardbred Canada advising against the use of First Choice products;

c) He kept the one bottle of P-Block because of potential future need;

d) He was unaware that P-Block was unapproved by Health Canada;

e) that He was unaware of/couldn't remember submitting licensing credentials to First Choice when P-Block was ordered. Clinic employee Candy Healy did the ordering upon Dr. Carroll's advice.

FURTHER TESTIMONY

On cross examination by Mr. Tropea, Mr. Sorensen testified as follows:

1. He wasn't aware if Mr. Lilley had used the dispensed Barn Use P-Block on a racehorse;

2. Dr. Carroll was agreeable, compliant, honest and forthcoming;

3. He had seen that Pitcher Plant was the labelled ingredient of P-Block (pg. 33, Transcript);

4. He was not aware, as when questioned by Mr. Tropea, that P-Block was Health Canada regulated under the Food and Drugs Act, not as a drug requiring a Drug Identification Number but as a therapeutic aid;

5. Dr. Carroll, he recognized, treated horses for other uses than racing and that P-Block may be used on them (pg. 35, Transcript);

6. Dr. Carroll shared responsibility with First Choice for the resulting issues related to incorrect P-Block labelling;

7. Dr. Carroll was using P-Block in the normal course of his practice due to unavailability of preferred medication ammonium chloride

8. As requested by Mr. Tropea, Dr. Carroll read into the record Standardbred Rule 6.46.01 a and b (pg. 42, 43, Transcript). He then read the paragraph following the Rule items, starting with " For the purposes...notwithstanding…b, a veterinarian may possess the drug, substance or medication, other than erythropoietin...if the possession is in the ordinary course of the practice of veterinary medicine for the purposes of prescribing or administering the drug, substance or medication for the treatment of a horse."

Mr. Sorensen agreed with Mr. Tropea that the preceding allowed veterinarians an exemption if the product is going to be used for veterinary medicine purposes, in the ordinary course of practice (pg. 43, Transcript).

Ms. Pote testified that she, Andrew Van't Wout and Gary Patterson reviewed Mr. Sorensen's inspection report and conducted the in-person interview with Dr. Carroll at Western Fair Raceway. They also decided on the Rules violated and assigned the penalties. Ms. Pote also testified the following:

1. She believed injectables were classified by Health Canada as drugs requiring prescription, "that was (her) understanding, at least" (pg. 50, Transcript);

2. P-Block required a for-veterinary-use label as per Health Canada;

3. P-Block required a Drug Identification Number and that it had improperly labelled ingredients;

4. It was AGCO’s position that if P-Block was inadequately quality-tested, it could potentially endanger horse health and impact the integrity of racing. Also, there was the potential for P-Block to initiate a certificate of positive analysis;

5. The incomplete labelling of the Lilley-dispensed P-Block resulted in the violation of SB Rule 8.14;

6. Dr. Carroll’s sourcing from First Choice was a more lenient process than that required from his other suppliers. Ms. Pote also spoke about CVO extra-label drug usage and possible application in this matter;

7. The reviewing Judge’s Panel concluded that ordering an injectable from an unknown supplier which did not require veterinary credentials was a red flag regarding possible product quality and that Dr. Carroll bears some responsibility for the P-Block issues;

8. Regarding penalty, although Dr. Carroll is upstanding and co-operative, which was mitigation, aggravating was that he kept one bottle of P-Block after the AGCO notification warning in July 2024.

Upon cross examination by Mr. Tropea, Ms. Pote testified that it was (her) understanding that anything that could be administered by syringe was a drug (pg. 60, Transcript). (She) tried to reach out to Health Canada to get confirmation but (she) did not hear back from them.

Ms. Pote also stated:

1. awareness that neither P-Block nor Pitcher Plant was a CPMA-controlled drug (pg. 60, Transcript);

2. re Pitcher Plant, she agreed with Mr. Tropea: “there’s no evidence anywhere that it’s listed as a drug (pg. 61, Transcript);

3. the only other Pitcher Plant violation on record was one currently under appeal.

The Appellant Dr. Wayne Carroll testified in chief that he was aware Pitcher Plant was listed as a therapeutic aid by Health Canada not a prescription drug. He said that it would be time-and-cost prohibitive for him to have to test every product for quality-assurance before use. He further testified that his last unused bottle of P-Block was only going to be used in need for his non-racehorse clients (pg. 91, Transcript).

MR. BRETHOUR’S SUBMISSIONS

Mr. Brethour reviewed testimony of Mr. Sorensen and Ms. Pote highlighting the following;

1. P-Block contains unlisted aminocaproic acid;

2. Dr. Carroll failed to properly determine pre purchase if First Choice Equine and by extension, P-Block, were reputable and reliable;

3. Dr. Carroll retained one bottle of P-Block after the AGCO July 2024 warning notification;

4. The Lilley-dispensed P-Block was improperly labelled.

Based on the preceding, Mr. Brethour asked that the appeal, in full, be dismissed.

MR. TROPEA’S SUBMISSIONS

The following reasons were given for allowing the appeal:

1. The violation of Rule 6.46.01 contravenes the explicit exception in the Rule that authorizes veterinarians to possess such substances in the ordinary course of practice

(pg. 43, Transcript);

2. Pitcher Plant is not classified as a drug by Health Canada and possession by a veterinarian is a permitted therapeutic activity;

3. P-Block and Pitcher Plant are not on the CPMA schedule of controlled drugs;

4. The violations occurred approximately one year before the AGCO July 2024 notification warning regarding First Choice Equine products;

5. The notwithstanding…b, explanatory paragraph in Rule 6.46.01 says that a veterinarian may possess the drug, substance or medication other than erythropoietin…if the possession is in the ordinary course of veterinary practice…for the treatment of a horse;

6. Investigator Sorensen agreed that Dr. Carroll used P-Block in the normal course of practice (pg. 43, Transcript);

7. The notwithstanding…b in Rule 6.46.01 overrides the primary prohibition and allows professional judgement;

8. Pitcher Plant is not a drug under Health Canada, the Food and Drugs Act, but a therapeutic aid. It’s not on CPMA’s schedule of drugs;

9. If Health Canada doesn’t list Pitcher Plant as a drug, a dispensing label doesn’t require the details of drug-dispending;

10. Dr. Carroll’s veterinary records show that he administered P-Block only in the course of practice treatment;

11. There were no certificates of positive analysis nor related animal welfare concerns, health, safety nor integrity issues resulting from the use of P-Block by Dr. Carroll;

12. If Dr. Carroll was found in violation, he could face additional CVO regulatory issues, professional harm and other jeopardy.

THE ISSUES

Should Dr. Carroll reasonably have known that P-Block contained the unlabelled aminocaproic acid? Was Dr. Carroll reasonably diligent in sourcing P-Block from First Choice Equine? Is Pitcher Plant a Health-Canada-listed drug or categorized otherwise? Did Dr. Carroll compound his violation of SB Rule 6.46.01 by keeping one bottle after the AGCO July 2024 warning notification? Was Dr. Carroll in violation of SB Rule 8.14 when he failed to complete the dispensing label of P-Block for client Mr. Lilley?

REASONS FOR DECISION

At the outset, significant to this preceding is to note that the burden of proof resides with the AGCO to satisfy the Panel that on a balance of probability violations have occurred.

a. If Dr. Carroll was to know that aminocaproic acid was an unlabelled ingredient in P-Block, he would either require documentation from another source or to have tested P-Block before using it. Since he bought P-Block in approximately April of 2023 and AGCO did not have concerns about First Choice at that time (pg. 39, Transcript), then product testing pre use was the other option, I conclude. If one accepts that pre use testing is reasonable, does that extend to every product that Dr. Carroll’s practice uses? Does that extend to every new-purchase-batch of every product that Dr. Carroll’s practice uses? Dr. Carroll testified that pre use testing would be time and cost prohibitive (pg. 75, Transcript). I agree with Dr, Carroll. It was not a reasonable option to pre test P-Block before using it.

b. Whether Dr. Carroll was adequately diligent in his online purchasing of P-Block is more of an open question. Of note, absolute liability doesn't apply in this matter, balance of probability does. Relying on long-tenured suppliers, especially Canadian-regulated, is comforting. New sources of supply, as we’re seeing in this appeal, can have risk. Could Dr. Carroll have canvassed peers, AGCO, and other sources for information about First Choice Equine pre- purchase? Perhaps that would have been helpful as to mitigate his position in this appeal. But that still may not have avoided what, I assume, First Choice itself didn’t know, that P-Block contained unlabelled aminocaproic acid. In my view, on balance of probability, a veterinarian of Dr. Carroll’s agreed-upon professional integrity was a victim of circumstance.

c. AGCO witness Ms. Pote, one of the decision-makers re violation and penalty, testified that it was her understanding that anything that could be given by syringe was a drug but that she couldn’t get confirmation of that from Health Canada (pg. 50, 60, 61, Transcript). Ms. Pote offered inconsistent evidence, it appeared to me, when she agreed that there was no evidence that Pitcher Plant was listed anywhere as a drug (pg. 61, Transcript).

d. Is Pitcher Plant, the product that Dr. Carroll ordered from First Choice, a drug according to Health Canada or is it on a less regulated list? Dr. Carroll called it a therapeutic aid. That may or may not be true because no Health Canada documentation was provided in support. But the onus is not on the appellant, it’s on AGCO to clearly inform the Panel by citing Health Canada

Regulations that define it as a drug, a medication, a substance, a natural health product, an Animal Health Product or a therapeutic aid. For the purposes of this proceeding, I am left without a definitive Health-Canada-documented definition. Since I’m not able to definitively accept Pitcher Plant as a drug for the purposes of SB Rule 8.14, drug-specific labelling of Mr. Lilley’s P-Block wasn’t necessary, hence no violation occurred.

e. Dr. Carroll testified that he was saving the clinic-bottle of P-Block if needed for use in his non-racehorses e.g. rodeo, roper, jumper clients (pg. 81, Transcript), even though he previously expressed dismay that he kept it at all. Given the often-stated integrity of Dr. Carroll, I take him at his word that AGCO-regulated racehorses were not at future risk from P-Block administration by Dr. Carroll.

f. Regarding the exemption referenced by Mr. Tropea in the SB Rule 6.46.01 explanatory paragraph, through witness Mr. Sorensen (pg. 42, 43, Transcript). I agree, Pitcher Plant previously used in the ordinary course of equine veterinary practice on racehorses by Dr. Carroll, given that he had no knowledge of unlabelled aminocaproic acid, was not in violation.

DECISION

I find that Dr. Wayne Carroll was not in violation of SB Rules 6.46.01 b, c, d, and e nor 8.14 ii, iii, and iv.

CONCLUSION

In the result, this appeal is allowed and Standardbred Ruling 3436799 is hereby set aside.