Owen M. Rees

The appellant, a standardbred licensee, appealed a Judges' Ruling that fined him $1,500 and suspended him for ten days after his horse tested positive for the Class V drug Procaine.

The Ontario Racing Commission denied the appeal, finding the penalty appropriate and consistent with the penalty guidelines for equine drug offenses.

The fine and suspension were upheld.

The appellant, a thoroughbred licensee, appealed a Notice of Proposed Order by the Director refusing him a licence and prohibiting re-application for two years.

The Ontario Racing Commission denied the appeal, finding that the appellant had an unaddressed substance abuse problem and had not provided evidence of seeking professional help.

The Commission refused the licence but allowed the appellant to re-apply in March 2010, subject to strict conditions including proof of successful completion of a substance abuse program and good behaviour.

The appellants appealed a jury award of over $1.6 million in damages arising from a motor vehicle accident.

They argued the trial judge improperly interfered with cross-examination, erred in admitting a medical report during a life-care planner's testimony, and that the damages awarded were inordinately high.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal regarding the trial judge's conduct and evidentiary rulings, finding no unwarranted interference and a proper exercise of discretion.

The court upheld the general damages and housekeeping awards, but reduced the future income loss award by $140,000 on consent to account for the respondent's mandatory retirement age from the military reserve.

Several police officers sought judicial review of a decision by the Toronto Police Services Board granting the Chief of Police an extension of time to serve notices of disciplinary hearings under s. 69(18) of the Police Services Act.

The officers argued that the Board breached procedural fairness by failing to provide full disclosure of the investigative brief, denying an oral hearing, and providing inadequate reasons.

The Divisional Court dismissed the applications, finding that the Board's procedure met the minimal requirements of fairness for an administrative, pre-charge decision and that the Board's decision to allow the delay was reasonable given the unprecedented complexity of the underlying criminal investigation.

Standardbred licensee Randy Zhok appealed the penalty of a $1,500 fine and a 90-day suspension imposed after his horse tested positive for the prohibited substance Torsemide.

The appellant admitted liability but argued for a reduced penalty based on his clean record.

The Ontario Racing Commission dismissed the appeal, finding the penalty appropriate given the appellant's careless approach to medication and his refusal to disclose the source of the unapproved drug.

The applicants, several police officers, brought a motion for a limited publication ban regarding Notices of Hearing and the Chief of Police's report.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that inadequate notice was given for the relief regarding the Notices of Hearing, and that the applicants failed to satisfy the Dagenais/Mentuck test for a publication ban on the Chief's report, agreeing with the prior endorsement of the motion judge.

The appellant, a standardbred licensee, received a 60-day suspension and a $1,500 fine after his horse tested positive for a Class 3 drug.

He appealed the penalty and requested a stay of the suspension pending the appeal, which the Director denied.

The Ontario Racing Commission reviewed the denial and granted a temporary stay until April 30, 2007, finding that while the appellant had not demonstrated exceptional circumstances, the Commission's change in policy regarding the automatic granting of stays had not been adequately communicated to the industry.

The appellant, a standardbred licensee, appealed a 60-day suspension and $1,500 fine for a positive drug test and requested a stay pending the appeal.

The Executive Director denied the stay.

On review, the Commission granted a temporary stay until April 30, 2007, to allow the appeal to be heard expeditiously, noting that a recent policy change regarding the automatic granting of stays had not been adequately communicated to the industry.

The applicants, police officers facing criminal charges, brought a motion for a publication ban and a sealing order regarding a confidential report by the Chief of Police.

The report was filed in support of an application for leave to serve notices of hearing under the Police Services Act.

The applicants argued that media access to the report would prejudice their right to a fair trial and risk witness tainting.

The court applied the Dagenais/Mentuck test and dismissed the motion, finding that the applicants failed to demonstrate a serious risk to the administration of justice, as the report was general in nature and alternative measures like challenges for cause were available.

The moving party, the Chief of Police, brought a motion to have two applications for judicial review heard at the same time pursuant to Rule 6.01(1).

Both applications arose from a decision of the Toronto Police Services Board regarding the delay in serving notices of hearing under the Police Services Act.

The court found that the applications arose out of the same transaction or occurrence and shared common questions of law and fact.

To avoid a multiplicity of proceedings and inconsistent results, the court granted the motion and ordered the applications to be heard together.