Patricia Latimer

The Ministry of the Attorney General applied for judicial review of an order by the Information and Privacy Commissioner requiring the disclosure of severed portions of statistical reports regarding court activity.

The reports were created by the Ministry at the request of the Chief Justice.

The Divisional Court held that while the Commissioner erred in finding the reports were under the Ministry's 'control', the reports were nonetheless in the Ministry's 'custody' because they were integrated into the Ministry's operations and used for its own core functions.

The court concluded that disclosing the severed portions would not compromise judicial independence and dismissed the application.

The appellants, a standardbred driver/trainer and an owner/trainer, appealed a decision suspending them for one year and imposing fines for tubing horses prior to races.

The Ontario Racing Commission heard evidence from eyewitnesses and an expert veterinarian who testified that tubing by non-veterinarians is dangerous and used to administer performance-enhancing alkalizing agents.

The Commission found clear and convincing evidence that the appellants tubed horses on race days, concluding that such actions are prejudicial to the integrity of racing and a threat to the health of the horses.

The appeals were dismissed and the penalties upheld.

The licensee appealed two Stewards' rulings: a $50 fine for smoking in a non-designated area and a 15-day suspension for using profanities and acting obnoxiously at a hearing.

The Ontario Racing Commission dismissed the appeals, finding the licensee admitted to the inappropriate behaviour and that witness testimony supported the smoking violation.

The Commission upheld the penalties and strongly recommended the licensee seek anger management treatment.

The applicants sought a stay of a ruling by the Commissioner of the Cornwall Public Inquiry and a Divisional Court decision pending an application for leave to appeal.

The Commissioner had ruled he had jurisdiction to hear evidence from two witnesses regarding alleged police failure to respond to a sexual assault complaint.

Applying the RJR-MacDonald test, the court found a serious question to be tried, irreparable harm to the applicants' reputation if the evidence was heard publicly before the appeal, and that the balance of convenience favoured granting the stay.

The motion for a stay was granted and the leave application expedited.

The appellant onion growers suffered significant crop losses due to onion maggots and sued the manufacturer and seller of the insecticide Dyfonate for breach of warranty and negligence.

The trial judge dismissed the action, finding that the crop failure was caused by unusually cool and dry environmental conditions that delayed the emergence of the maggots, rather than a defect in the insecticide.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's factual findings and concluded that the respondents provided no express or implied warranties regarding the insecticide's effectiveness under those unusual conditions, nor were they negligent.

The appellant, a licensed thoroughbred trainer, appealed a $2,000 fine imposed for refusing to allow his horse to be administered Lasix, which resulted in the horse being scratched from a race.

The horse had been forced to race on an off-turf track due to weather conditions, and the appellant refused to race the horse due to safety concerns.

The Ontario Racing Commission allowed the appeal, finding that the appellant's safety concerns were reasonable and provided 'reasonable justification' under the rules for refusing the Lasix administration.

The fine was rescinded.

The appellant, a standardbred owner and trainer, appealed a 30-day suspension and $500 fine imposed for failing to comply with the conditions of a trainer transfer.

The appellant had signed a transfer form for a horse, which required him to provide unimpeded access to Ontario Racing Commission investigators.

When an investigator attempted to conduct a spot check at the appellant's farm in Quebec, the appellant refused access, claiming the investigator had no jurisdiction.

The Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant's conduct amounted to a refusal of access and that the investigator was acting reasonably to protect the public interest.

The appellant, a standardbred owner and trainer, appealed the penalty imposed by track judges after his horse tested positive for Flunixin, a Class IV drug.

The track judges had imposed a $2000 fine and a 150-day suspension.

The appellant admitted the violation but appealed the penalty.

The Ontario Racing Commission accepted a joint submission, varying the penalty to a 75-day suspension and a $1000 fine, but extended the proposed probation period to three years due to the appellant's history of positive tests.

The appellant horse trainer appealed a ruling that found him in violation of the Rules of Standardbred Racing after his horse tested positive for elevated TCO2 levels.

The appellant argued that the test was invalid because the blood sample was taken 28 minutes prior to the race, outside the 20-minute window prescribed by the rules.

The Commission dismissed the appeal, accepting expert evidence that taking the sample further from race time actually benefited the horseman.

The panel concluded that the elevated TCO2 level could only result from human interference and upheld the violation.

The appellant sought a publication ban on the name of its employee, who had been acquitted of historical sexual abuse charges, in relation to evidence given at the Cornwall Public Inquiry.

The Commissioner refused the ban, finding the public interest in openness outweighed the employee's privacy interests.

The Divisional Court dismissed an application for judicial review, applying a reasonableness standard.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the Divisional Court correctly identified reasonableness as the standard of review and that the Commissioner reasonably applied the Dagenais/Mentuck test in balancing the protection of innocence against the public interest in an open inquiry.

The appellant appealed his conviction and 12-month custodial sentence for an offence involving dangerous driving.

The appellant argued the trial judge misapprehended witness testimony regarding the victim's position and erred in rejecting the defence of necessity.

The Court of Appeal found no misapprehension of evidence, holding that the appellant's decision to back up his vehicle at speed with the victim in harm's way amounted to wanton and reckless disregard.

The court also upheld the sentence, noting the combination of alcohol consumption and dangerous driving.

The conviction and sentence appeals were dismissed.

The appellant, a standardbred licensee, appealed a ruling that he violated Rule 15.09(a) by racing a claimed horse outside Ontario within 60 days of the claim.

The appellant argued that the consignor should bear responsibility.

The Ontario Racing Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the rule places responsibility on the party who claims the horse, and upheld the $1,200 fine.

The licensee appealed a ruling suspending his Ontario standardbred licence pending the resolution of a suspension imposed by the Ohio Racing Commission for a TCO2 positive test.

The Ohio penalty had been stayed by an Ohio court, but on conditions that effectively barred him from racing in Ohio.

The Ontario Racing Commission granted the appeal and lifted the suspension, but imposed strict conditions on his Ontario licence, including mandatory TCO2 testing at his own expense, to protect the public interest while respecting the principles of reciprocity.

The applicant sought judicial review of a ruling by the Commissioner of the Cornwall Public Inquiry that allowed the Commission to hear evidence from alleged victims of historical sexual abuse.

The applicant argued that hearing such evidence would convert the inquiry into a substitute police investigation and exceed its mandate by requiring findings of civil or criminal responsibility.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Commissioner clearly understood his mandate to assess the institutional response rather than determine individual liability, and that he appropriately balanced the need for the evidence against the applicant's reputational interests.

Standardbred licensee Adam Kaminski appealed a decision by Hanover Raceway finding his horse ineligible to race in the Balanced Image Race because it had not paid its Ontario Sires Stakes (OSS) fees.

Kaminski argued that 'OSS eligible' meant the horse was sired by an Ontario stallion, regardless of whether nomination and sustaining payments were made.

The Ontario Racing Commission dismissed the appeal, with a dissenting opinion, holding that in the context of the race conditions and industry practice, 'OSS eligible' meant eligible to race with all appropriate OSS payments having been made.

Standardbred licensee Terry Fritz appealed a judges' ruling that declared a race a 'No Contest' after a driver was unseated and a horse got loose on the first turn.

The Ontario Racing Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the judges correctly called the race a 'No Contest' because all horses were interfered with and a loose horse presents a safety concern that precludes a proper contest.

The appellant, a standardbred driver/trainer, appealed a penalty following a positive drug test for cocaine.

The Ontario Racing Commission suspended his licence for nine months and imposed a one-year probation period, requiring him to complete a drug rehabilitation program, attend Narcotics Anonymous, and submit to random drug testing.

The Commission emphasized the need to protect other drivers, horses, and the betting public, while acknowledging the appellant's efforts to seek treatment.

Dr. Levman, a veterinarian, appealed a ruling by the Executive Director that prohibited any horse he treated from racing in Ontario.

The ruling was based on Dr. Levman purchasing unapproved and improperly labelled drugs from an unauthorized source and using them on racehorses.

The Commission upheld the ruling, finding that Dr. Levman prioritized his convenience and clients' demands over regulatory compliance and horse safety.

However, the Commission amended the penalty from a lifetime ban to a four-year suspension, ending September 24, 2009, noting his cooperation and lesser involvement compared to other veterinarians in similar cases.

The licensee, a standardbred veterinarian, appealed a Notice of Proposed Order by the Executive Director to revoke his licenses and impose a lifetime suspension for purchasing controlled substances from an unlicensed supplier.

The Commission found the licensee's explanations regarding his accounting records and drug inventory lacked credibility and upheld the finding that he would not act in accordance with the law, integrity, or the public interest.

The Commission set aside the lifetime suspension, instead imposing a 7-year suspension and a $25,000 fine.

The Executive Director of the Ontario Racing Commission ordered the immediate suspension and proposed the revocation and lifetime suspension of Dr. John Flanigan's licenses as a Standardbred driver, owner, trainer, and veterinarian.

The allegations centered on Dr. Flanigan's business relationship with an unlicensed individual, Fred Rogers, through whom he purchased unlabelled and controlled substances for use on racehorses, and permitted Rogers to use his veterinary credentials to acquire restricted drugs.

The Commission upheld the finding that Dr. Flanigan failed to act with integrity and in the public interest, but varied the penalty, ordering his licenses revoked and suspended for five years, along with a $25,000 fine.