Ontario Racing Commission

The appellant, a veterinarian, appealed a decision of the Executive Director suspending him for two years and fining him $20,000 for violations of the Rules of Standardbred Racing.

At the commencement of the appeal hearing, the appellant brought motions requesting that the Commission Chair and another Commissioner recuse themselves from the panel.

The panel granted the motion for the Chair to recuse herself, dismissed the motion regarding the other Commissioner, and ordered that the hearing be rescheduled with the Vice Chair presiding.

A veterinarian appealed a six-month suspension and $5,000 fine imposed for submitting a falsified Coggins Certificate for a racehorse.

The Ontario Racing Commission found that while the veterinarian did not directly participate in creating the fraudulent document, he was ultimately responsible for the actions of his employee who fabricated it.

The Commission upheld the finding of liability and the $5,000 fine, but quashed the six-month suspension.

The appellant, a standardbred owner/driver/trainer, appealed a decision of the Ontario Racing Industry Board of Appeal that upheld a three-day driving suspension for violating Rule 22.05(a) of the Rules of Standardbred Racing.

The Ontario Racing Commission heard evidence from several witnesses and dismissed the appeal, with reasons forming part of the hearing transcript.

The applicant requested a hearing before the Ontario Racing Commission regarding the Deputy Director's Notice of Proposed Order to Revoke his licence as a standardbred owner, driver, and trainer, as well as an Order of Immediate Suspension.

Following a hearing where testimony was heard from multiple witnesses, the Commission ordered that the Proposed Order be set aside and the Order of Immediate Suspension be withdrawn.

The reasons for the decision were delivered orally and form part of the hearing transcript.

The appellant, a standardbred owner/driver/trainer, appealed a decision of the Ontario Racing Industry Board of Appeal upholding a $200 fine for a driving violation under Rule 22.22.

The appellant failed to appear at the hearing before the Ontario Racing Commission.

After hearing evidence from the Administration, the Commission dismissed the appeal.

The Ontario Racing Commission issued an interim ruling regarding the 2004 race dates applications for Western Fair, Clinton, Woodstock, and Hiawatha race tracks.

The Commission had previously approved the applications on the condition that the tracks file amended applications adding dates to the calendar.

Having received the responses, the Commission directed the Administration to circulate a summary of the responses to the Ontario Harness Horse Association (OHHA) and other stakeholders for comment before making a final determination.

The licensee was suspended indefinitely by the Judges for refusing to provide a sample when requested at Windsor Raceway.

Following a mandatory hearing before the Ontario Racing Commission, the Commission reinstated the licensee's licence subject to the conditions set out in a previous ruling remaining in place indefinitely.

The licensee was also ordered to inquire with the Paddock Judge at every race whether the drug testing unit is present.

The applicant, a standardbred licensee, appealed a ruling of the Ontario Racing Commission.

The Commission ordered that the applicant may be licensed subject to strict conditions, including a maximum 18-month term, quarterly employment reports, random urine testing, and mandatory participation in a substance abuse program.

Any breach of the conditions would result in immediate revocation of the licence.

The Ontario Racing Commission heard applications for 2004 race dates from Western Fair, Hiawatha Horse Park, Clinton Raceway, and Woodstock Raceway.

The Ontario Harness Horse Association (OHHA) requested that the Commission order the tracks to conduct additional race dates.

The Commission approved the applications conditionally, requiring the tracks to file amended applications by January 15, 2004, adding dates to their calendars, noting that the tracks had failed to sufficiently build on the opportunity presented by the slots program to enhance live racing.

The appellant owner/trainer appealed a decision of the Industry Board of Appeal confirming the disqualification of his horse for causing interference during a race.

The Ontario Racing Commission reviewed video evidence and testimony from the stewards and jockeys, concluding that the appellant's horse impeded another horse, causing a chain reaction that resulted in a spill.

The appeal was dismissed and the disqualification affirmed.

A request by the Administration for a penalty for a frivolous appeal was denied by a majority of the panel.

Thoroughbred owner Richard Jukosky appealed the results of the 8th race at Woodbine Racetrack on September 28, 2003, in which his horse finished second and Dr. John Chandler's horse finished first.

After hearing evidence from several witnesses, the Ontario Racing Commission dismissed the appeal and confirmed the original order of finish.

The appellant, a standardbred owner and trainer, appealed a 30-day suspension and $1,000 fine for violating Rules 10.01(a) and (b) of the Rules of Standardbred Racing by possessing a hypodermic needle and injectables on the backstretch.

The Ontario Racing Commission dismissed the appeal, preferring the evidence of the security officer who witnessed the incident over the appellant's denials.

The Commission affirmed the penalty.

A thoroughbred jockey appealed a Stewards' Ruling fining him $500 for failing to persevere with his mount during a race, in violation of Rule 9.01 of the Rules of Thoroughbred Racing.

Following a hearing where evidence was presented by the jockey and another witness, the Ontario Racing Commission granted the appeal.

The reasons for the decision were delivered orally and form part of the hearing transcript.

Standardbred owner Peter Haime appealed the decision of the Ontario Racing Industry Board of Appeal which placed BACKNTHESADDLEAPAN 1st and GOLFMAN 2nd in a race at Mohawk Raceway.

The Ontario Racing Commission dismissed the appeal and confirmed the placing of the horses.

Thoroughbred owners appealed the decision of the Ontario Racing Industry Board of Appeal, which upheld the Stewards' decision to disqualify their horse from 2nd position and place it 7th for interference during a race at Woodbine Racetrack.

The Ontario Racing Commission heard evidence from several witnesses and dismissed the appeal.

The reasons for the decision were delivered orally and form part of the hearing transcript.

The appellant, a standardbred owner/driver/trainer, appealed a $600 fine imposed for failing to fulfill his driving engagements in six races.

The Ontario Racing Commission heard the appeal and granted it, with reasons forming part of the hearing transcript.

The appellants, thoroughbred owners and trainers, appealed a Stewards' ruling denying their protest of a race outcome.

They alleged the winning horse carried less weight than required.

The Commission found that a typographical error in the condition book caused confusion, but the winning horse carried the correct weight according to the official Stakes book.

The Commission refused the appeals, noting that disqualifying the horse would constitute an undue hardship and would not be in the best interests of racing.

The Ontario Racing Commission heard applications for 2004 live and intertrack race dates from Rideau Carleton Raceway and Hiawatha Horse Park.

The Ontario Harness Horse Association opposed Rideau Carleton's application, arguing that the lack of winter racing negatively impacted horsemen and the local economy.

The majority of the Commission approved Rideau Carleton's application for 131 live race dates, finding no convincing evidence that winter racing would have a positive economic impact on the track or handle.

A dissenting opinion argued that the application should be rejected to encourage more live racing opportunities, consistent with the goals of the slots program.

A thoroughbred trainer appealed a stewards' ruling fining him $1,000 for being disrespectful and threatening a racing official.

At the hearing, the trainer admitted to being disrespectful and agreed the $1,000 fine was appropriate, but contested the finding that he had threatened the official.

The Commission dismissed the appeal, finding the sole remaining issue to be substantially hypothetical and moot, as a finding on the threat would have no practical effect on the penalty or outcome.

The appellant, a standardbred owner, driver, and trainer, appealed a decision of the Ontario Racing Industry Board of Appeal that upheld a three-day driving suspension for violating Rule 22.05(g)(i) of the Rules of Standardbred Racing.

After hearing evidence from multiple witnesses, the Ontario Racing Commission dismissed the appeal.

The reasons for the decision were delivered orally and form part of the hearing transcript.