ORC 2009

The appellant, a standardbred licensee, appealed a Notice of Proposed Order to revoke his licence.

The Administration sought revocation based on the appellant's outstanding warrant and civil judgments in Ireland, prior convictions, and failure to disclose these matters on his licence application.

The Ontario Racing Commission found that the appellant's conduct in Ireland, including defrauding his employees of pension withholdings, and his failure to disclose his record demonstrated a lack of honesty and integrity.

The appeal was denied and the licence revocation was upheld.

The appellant, a thoroughbred licensee, appealed a ruling placing his horse on the Stewards' List due to repeated veterinary scratches for lameness.

The horse was rendered ineligible to race in Ontario until it completed a required protocol for removal from the list.

The appellant sought to have the horse removed from the list without completing the protocol.

The Ontario Racing Commission panel dismissed the appeal, finding that the Commission veterinarians acted properly in the interest of safety for horses and jockeys.

The panel declined to award costs against the appellant, finding the appeal was not frivolous.

The appellant, a licensed jockey, appealed a penalty of a 25-day suspension and a $2,500 fine imposed by the Stewards for gross and unsportsmanlike conduct following a race where he was unseated.

The appellant directed vulgar and degrading comments at another jockey in public and in the jockeys' quarters.

The Ontario Racing Commission varied the penalty, upholding the 25-day suspension but staying 18 days on conditions, and increasing the fine to $4,000, noting the appellant's remorse and apology as mitigating factors.

The appellant, a standardbred licensee, appealed an Order of Immediate Suspension and a Notice of Proposed Order suspending his licence for 10 years and imposing a $40,000 fine for acquiring and possessing Aranesp (EPO), a prohibited performance-enhancing drug.

The appellant admitted to obtaining the drug but claimed ignorance of the rules and reliance on his veterinarian.

The Ontario Racing Commission upheld the 10-year suspension, emphasizing the severe threat performance-enhancing drugs pose to the integrity of horse racing and the need for strong deterrence, but reduced the fine to $20,000.

The appellant, a standardbred licensee, appealed a ruling that fined him $1,000 and suspended his driving privileges for four months for excessive whipping of a horse during a race.

The Ontario Racing Commission found that whipping a horse 22 to 24 times during the stretch run was excessive in the extreme and violated Standardbred Rule 22.22.

The appeal was dismissed.

The licensee appealed a ruling of the track Judges imposing a $500 fine and a 3-day driving suspension for using his whip in a blatant and exaggerated manner.

The licensee failed to attend the de novo hearing before the Ontario Racing Commission.

The Commission denied the appeal, upholding the original penalty, and assessed an additional $1,500 fine against the licensee for bringing a frivolous appeal and abusing the process.

The appellant, a licensed veterinarian, appealed an Order of Immediate Suspension and a Notice of Proposed Order suspending his licence for 12 years and imposing a $50,000 fine for prescribing Aranesp (EPO/DPO) to racehorses.

The Ontario Racing Commission found that the appellant breached multiple rules and the Veterinarians Act by prescribing the illegal, non-therapeutic drug without examining the horses or determining if other drugs were being administered.

The Commission denied the appeal but varied the penalty to a 10-year suspension and a $40,000 fine, consistent with the Penalty Guidelines for Equine Drug Offences.

The appellant, a standardbred licensee, appealed a decision imposing a $1,500 fine and a 60-day suspension after his horse tested positive for an excess level of TCO2.

The appellant argued that the blood sample was tested more than 48 hours after collection, contrary to the rules.

The Ontario Racing Commission denied the appeal, finding that the 48-hour timeframe is a guideline, the delay actually worked to the appellant's advantage by potentially lowering TCO2 levels, and the technical errors in the original ruling did not prejudice the appellant.

The appellant, an official clocker, appealed a 30-day suspension imposed by the Stewards for allegedly altering a workout time to make a horse eligible to race.

The Ontario Racing Commission panel found that the appellant corrected a timing error in good faith, consistent with established clocking protocols, and without knowledge of the horse's eligibility requirements.

The panel concluded there was no evidence of an integrity breach or willful wrongdoing.

The appeal was allowed and the suspension rescinded.

The applicant, a standardbred licensee and trainer, appealed a decision requiring him to sign the track operator's Access Agreement as a condition of entering horses to race.

The applicant argued that the track operator was usurping the regulatory authority of the Ontario Racing Commission by imposing its own rules and disciplinary measures.

The Commission dismissed the application, holding that the track operator was legitimately exercising its private property rights and business interests.

The Commission affirmed that track rules governing the conduct of racing on private property do not oust the Commission's overarching regulatory authority or the licensee's right to due process.

The appellant, a standardbred licensee, appealed a decision of the Ontario Racing Commission Judges denying his horse entries at Mohawk for failing to sign the Woodbine Entertainment Group's Application for Access Rights.

The Judges had ruled that he must comply with track rules to enter horses.

The Ontario Racing Commission panel dismissed the appeal, with reasons to follow.

The appellant, a licensed jockey, tested positive for cocaine for a second time within twelve months and was suspended.

He applied for a reinstatement hearing after providing a negative test result.

The Ontario Racing Commission ruled that the appellant would be eligible for reinstatement upon successful completion of his after care program, provided he also submits proof of regular participation in a support group, having a sponsor, and involvement with his church group.

The Administration was authorized to attach further conditions to his license upon reinstatement.

The appellant, a standardbred licensee, appealed a ruling that imposed a $5,000 fine and a one-year suspension after his horse tested positive for Ractopamine.

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

The Ontario Racing Commission panel rejected the joint submission, finding that the positive test resulted from inadvertent ingestion of contaminated feed for which the feed supplier accepted responsibility.

Applying a strict liability defence to the absolute liability offence, the panel held the appellant blameless and assessed no penalty, though the purse redistribution stood.

The licensee appealed an Order of Immediate Suspension and a Notice of Proposed Order to suspend his licence for 10 years and impose a $40,000 fine.

The Ontario Racing Commission panel denied the appeal, confirmed the 10-year suspension, and increased the fine to $60,000.

Reasons for decision were to follow.

The appellant, a horse trainer, appealed the penalties imposed by the Windsor Raceway Judges for a positive drug test (Methocarbamol) and a subsequent breach of probation.

The Ontario Racing Commission upheld the penalty for the positive test, finding no grounds for mitigation given a prior drug violation.

However, the Commission varied the penalty for the breach of probation by deleting the 75-day suspension, noting the lack of precedent for probation breach penalties and the appellant's innocent explanation for the medication timing error.

The net penalty was a 75-day suspension, a $2,000 fine, and two years of probation.

The appellant, a licensed driver, appealed a 60-day driving suspension and the placing of his horse from second to sixth for a driving violation during a harness race.

The judges found he committed interference by putting a wheel under another horse for a sustained period.

The Ontario Racing Commission dismissed the appeal regarding the violation and the placing of the horse, finding overwhelming evidence of deliberate and dangerous careless driving.

However, the Commission reduced the driving suspension from 60 days to 30 days because the original penalty was based on a duplicated entry in the appellant's driving record.

The appellant, a standardbred licensee, appealed four rulings by the Judges rendering two horses ineligible to race in Ontario for 90 days and ordering the return and redistribution of purse money.

The horses had tested positive for Trenbolone, a Class III drug, in Pennsylvania.

The appellant argued the 90-day ineligibility should commence when the Ontario Racing Commission was notified, not the date the horses were identified with the positive tests.

The Commission dismissed the appeal, holding that under Rule 11.10.02, ineligibility automatically commences on the date of identification.

The Commission also found no basis for equitable relief, as the owners knew of the positive tests before racing the horses in Ontario.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Proposed Order to Refuse to Issue a Licence.

The Ontario Racing Commission granted the appeal, allowing the appellant to be granted a conditional trainer's private licence, provided the employing entity assumes responsibility for all stable business expenses and the appellant acts as a salaried employee.

Alternatively, the appellant may apply for an assistant trainer licence with no involvement in business operations.

The panel emphasized its policy of rehabilitation where warranted.

The appellant, a thoroughbred licensee, appealed the Director's decision denying a stay of a 90-day suspension for the horse Hollywood Hit.

The suspension was issued after a positive test for the Class III drug acepromazine.

The appellant argued the stay should be granted until a split sample retest result was available.

The Commission denied the appeal, finding that the positive test triggered an absolute liability offence under the owner responsibility rules, and no exceptional or mitigating factors were demonstrated to justify a stay.

The appellant appealed a track stewards' ruling declaring his quarter horse ineligible to race for 14 days after it was observed bleeding following a race and placed on the Bleeder List.

The Ontario Racing Commission denied the appeal, finding that the 14-day healing period was an established protocol set by veterinary professionals and that the calculation of the ineligibility period correctly excluded the day of the incident.