Ontario Racing Commission

The appellant appealed against the Director's Notice of Proposed Order to Refuse to Issue a Licence.

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

Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

The appellant, a licensed owner, trainer, and driver, appealed a 45-day suspension and $2,500 fine imposed after his horse tested positive for TCO2.

The appellant argued the test was invalid because the veterinary technician who administered it had an expired licence.

The Ontario Racing Commission denied the appeal, finding that the technician's expired licence was a technical error that did not invalidate the test results or her qualifications.

The Commission also found no compelling evidence to further vary the penalty, noting the appellant's responsibility as a trainer for the horse's condition.

Hiawatha Horse Park appealed a Director's Notice of Order regarding a substantial underpayment to its purse account.

The Ontario Racing Commission denied the appeal, finding that the track violated Standardbred Rule 7.16.02 by failing to remit funds legally due to the horse people.

The panel determined the underpayment amount to be $677,000.00 and upheld the original $5,000.00 fine.

Additionally, the panel imposed a $1,500.00 fine on the appellant for filing a frivolous appeal, noting the lack of preparation and evidence.

The appellants, Jeffrey Brooks and Bulletproof Enterprises, appealed an Order of Immediate Suspension and a Notice of Proposed Order.

The Ontario Racing Commission found that Jeffrey Brooks permitted his brother, David Brooks, a suspended and unlicensed person, to exercise extensive and continuing control over the Bulletproof racing operation.

The Commission also found that the appellants displayed financial irresponsibility by failing to pay numerous trade accounts and court judgments.

The appeal was denied.

The Commission imposed a 10-year suspension and a $400,000 fine on Jeffrey Brooks, and ordered the forfeiture of purse funds won by ineligible horses.

The appellant appealed a ruling finding he violated Standardbred Rules 22.23.01(a), 22.23.04(d) and 22.23.05(a) and (b).

The Ontario Racing Commission denied the appeal, finding on a balance of probabilities that the appellant committed the violations based on the testimony of the judge and the video of the race.

The penalty was not varied, considering this was his second offence and the number of times the rule was violated.

The appellant appealed a ruling that he violated Standardbred Rule 22.03(j)(vii) for failing to have his horse on the starting gate during a race.

The Ontario Racing Commission denied the appeal, finding on a balance of probabilities that the video evidence and testimony supported the violation.

The panel noted the appellant did not speak to the starter post-race and that enforcing the rule protects the public interest.

The appellant, a long-time racing official, appealed the Director's decision to deny his request for a conditional licence pending an ongoing investigation into his conduct as Clerk of the Scales.

The appellant had initially refused to cooperate with investigators but later complied.

The Ontario Racing Commission upheld the Director's decision, finding that the ongoing investigation into safety and potential improprieties was conducted in good faith and that denying the conditional licence was in the public interest.

The Commission also found that the appeal was not frivolous and declined to impose a penalty.

Two horse trainers appealed their 15-day suspensions and $1,000 fines after their horses tested positive for the Class IV drug ketoprofen following race victories.

The trainers argued they exercised due diligence by relying on veterinary advice and administering the drug outside the 48-hour guideline.

The Ontario Racing Commission denied the appeals, finding the trainers failed to provide clear, cogent, and compelling evidence to establish due diligence on a balance of probabilities, as expert evidence indicated the drug was likely administered within 48 hours.

However, considering their clean records and mitigating factors, the Commission varied the penalty by staying 10 days of each suspension while maintaining the $1,000 fines.

The appellants appealed the 90-day suspensions of their horses following positive tests for Ractopamine.

The Ontario Racing Commission found that the positive tests resulted from contaminated feed purchased from an arms-length supplier, and the trainers were absolved of any wrongdoing.

Relying on veterinary evidence that the drug had cleared the horses' systems, the panel concluded that extraordinary circumstances existed to grant a stay of the remaining suspension days for the horses.

The appellant, a licensed driver/trainer/owner, appealed a ruling that imposed a 10-day suspension and a $2,500 fine after his horse tested positive for isoxsuprine.

At the hearing, the parties presented an Agreed Statement of Facts and a Joint Submission on Disposition.

The panel accepted the joint submission, reducing the suspension to seven days while maintaining the $2,500 fine, and the appellant withdrew his appeal.

The appellant, a horse trainer, appealed a ruling by the Ontario Racing Commission Stewards suspending him for 6 months and fining him $5,000 after his horse tested positive for Acepromazine following a race.

The appellant argued a due diligence defence and relied on a split sample retest showing low concentration levels.

The Panel denied the appeal, finding that the appellant failed to follow the CPMA guidelines regarding dosage and frequency, ignored warnings about the drug lingering in the horse's system, and used unlicensed compounded medications.

The Panel upheld the penalty as the minimum under the guidelines for a second offence.

Five horse trainers and owners appealed the denial of a stay of 90-day suspensions imposed after their horses tested positive for Ractopamine.

The appellants argued that extraordinary circumstances existed because the positive tests were allegedly caused by contaminated feed from a common supplier, and the suspensions would cause financial hardship.

The Ontario Racing Commission denied the appeal, finding no extraordinary circumstances to warrant a stay before the completion of the ongoing investigation and due process.

The appellant, a standardbred racehorse trainer, appealed a ruling imposing a $500 fine and a 7-day suspension after his horse tested positive for furosemide above the permitted limit.

The appellant argued the testing process was unreliable, the horse was an outlier, he exercised due diligence, and the penalty was too severe.

The Ontario Racing Commission dismissed the appeal, finding the testing process reliable and insufficient evidence to prove the horse was an outlier.

The panel also found the appellant failed to establish a due diligence defence, as no acceptable explanation for the positive test was provided.

The penalty was confirmed as fair and proportionate.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Proposed Order to suspend her groom and owner licence for two years due to her involvement in and knowledge of prohibited injections administered to racehorses by her trainer boyfriend.

The parties presented an Agreed Statement of Facts and Joint Submission on Disposition.

The Ontario Racing Commission accepted the joint submission, imposing a 29-month suspension (time served) and allowing her to be licensed as a groom for two years subject to strict conditions.

The appellant appealed a ruling regarding his racing license.

The Ontario Racing Commission allowed the appeal and reinstated the appellant's license, subject to the condition that he provide written proof of compliance with his return to work agreement, including establishing a series of meetings with his psychiatrist.

The appellant appealed a ruling regarding interference by his horse during a race at Woodbine.

The Ontario Racing Commission panel reviewed video evidence and testimony from jockeys and a steward.

The panel concluded on a balance of probabilities that the appellant's horse changed lanes early into the turn, interfering with two other horses.

The appeal was denied.

The appellant appealed against the Director's Proposed Order to Refuse to Issue a Licence.

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

Consequently, the panel upheld the Director's Order.

The appellant, a thoroughbred licensee, appealed a ruling suspending his license pending an Ontario Racing Commission investigation and requested a stay of the suspension.

The appellant was subject to a court order with restrictions related to ongoing criminal proceedings.

The Commission denied the request for a stay, finding that the appellant failed to provide compelling reasons and that financial hardship alone does not constitute extraordinary circumstances justifying a stay before the completion of the regulatory investigation and criminal matters.

The appellant, a horse owner, appealed a 90-day suspension imposed on his horse after it tested positive for TCO2.

The appellant argued for a reduction in the penalty due to financial hardship and his reliance on his trainer.

The Ontario Racing Commission denied the appeal, holding that the 'Owner Responsibility Rule' (Rule 11.10.01) imposes a mandatory 90-day suspension without discretion.

The rule was designed to ensure owners take a proactive role in the care of their horses and to serve as a strict deterrent against illegal medications in horse racing.

The appellant appealed a 10-day suspension ordered by the judges at Western Fair Raceway for a violation of the Rules of Standardbred Racing.

The Ontario Racing Commission panel varied the start date of the suspension from December 2015 to June 2013 to conform with a prior amended ruling.