Shale Wagman

The Registrar requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that set aside an order immediately suspending the appellant's horse racing licences.

The Registrar argued the Tribunal made errors of law and fact by fettering its discretion regarding bail conditions and mischaracterizing hearsay evidence, including a court Information and a Crown Brief Synopsis.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding no errors were made.

The Tribunal held that it had properly weighed the unpersuasive hearsay evidence and had not fettered its discretion, but rather declined to exercise it to impose conditions.

The appellant appealed an Order of Immediate Suspension of his horse racing licences issued by the Registrar after he was charged with several criminal offences, including sexual assault involving a minor.

The Registrar argued the suspension was necessary in the public interest to maintain confidence in the industry and protect the public.

The Tribunal found that the Registrar failed to meet its onus, as the only evidence of the alleged conduct consisted of unproven charges and hearsay evidence from a police officer who had no first-hand knowledge.

The Tribunal set aside the immediate suspension order.

The appellant appealed a stewards' ruling that disqualified his horse for interference at the start of a race.

The Ontario Racing Commission panel reviewed the race footage and found that the horse took a path that was not clear, causing interference with another horse.

The panel affirmed that a disqualification can occur at any point in a race, including the start.

The appeal was denied and the disqualification was upheld.

The appellants appealed a ruling for interference during a horse race at Woodbine Racetrack.

The Commissioner found that the jockey's actions caused interference, justifying the disqualification.

However, acknowledging some doubt as to whether the jockey could see the other horse, the Commissioner varied the standard three-day riding suspension to a two-day suspension.

The appellant jockey appealed a stewards' ruling that found he caused interference during a horse race, resulting in his horse being placed fourth and a three-day suspension.

The Ontario Racing Commission upheld the interference finding, noting that the appellant's horse veered in and pinched off another horse.

However, the Commission found the three-day suspension harsh given the unintentional nature of the interference and reduced the penalty to a one-day suspension.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging workplace harassment more than one year after the last alleged incident.

The applicant argued the delay was justified because she had first pursued a civil action in Small Claims Court, which was dismissed without prejudice to her right to file with the Tribunal.

The Tribunal found that pursuing other legal remedies before turning to the Tribunal does not amount to a good faith explanation for delay.

The application was dismissed for delay.

The appellant applied for a reinstatement hearing after his horse racing licence was suspended in 2012.

The Ontario Racing Commission accepted a Post Violation Agreement on consent between the parties.

The appellant's licence was reinstated subject to the agreement, and a $1,000 fine was stayed pending compliance.

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 appellants, an owner and a trainer, appealed a decision by the Stewards to disqualify their horse from first position and place it fifth for interference during a race.

The Ontario Racing Commission panel reviewed the evidence, including film and testimony from the Stewards and jockeys.

The panel found that the jockey dropped in without being clear, causing interference with another horse.

The appeal was disallowed and the Stewards' placing was upheld.

Harlequin Ranches appealed a decision of the Woodbine Racetrack Stewards concerning a claim of foul in a thoroughbred race.

The Stewards had determined there were no violations and declared the race official despite contact between horses in the stretch run.

The Ontario Racing Commission panel reviewed the evidence and testimony, concluding that the contact was incidental and did not affect the final outcome of the race.

The appeal was denied and the official order of finish was upheld.

The licensee, a jockey, appealed a three-day suspension for interference during a horse race.

The licensee admitted to the interference but appealed the penalty.

The Ontario Racing Commission upheld the three-day suspension, finding it consistent with precedent.

The Commission also found the appeal to be frivolous, as the licensee admitted the offence and offered no new material evidence or mitigating factors, and imposed a $750 fine.

A jockey, trainer, and owner appealed a stewards' ruling that disqualified their horse from first place and suspended the jockey for three days due to interference during a race.

The appellants argued that the interference was caused by another jockey's whip getting caught in their horse's tail.

The Ontario Racing Commission found that the jockey initiated the interference by aggressively moving his horse into the path of others, which caused the whip to become entangled.

The appeals were denied, the disqualification was upheld, and the jockey's suspension was confirmed.

The appellant, a thoroughbred licensee, appealed a decision by the Ontario Racing Commission suspending him for violating drug and alcohol rules.

The Commission denied the appeal but, recognizing his rehabilitation progress, allowed him to obtain a limited licence as a groom, hot walker, or exercise rider to facilitate employment.

Upon conclusion of his suspension, he will be placed on probation for one year with strict conditions, including mandatory drug testing and abstinence from alcohol and controlled substances.

Thoroughbred Jockey Constant Montpellier appealed a 5-day suspension for careless riding and interference during a race.

The Ontario Racing Commission panel reviewed the evidence, including testimony and videotape, and found that the appellant deliberately brought his horse into the path of another horse to interfere and intimidate.

The panel dismissed the appeal and upheld the suspension, noting that such deliberate actions could cause a real accident.

The plaintiff brought a slip and fall action under the simplified procedure, capping his claim at $25,000.

The trial judge assessed damages at $34,933.14 but found the plaintiff 50% contributorily negligent, resulting in an award of $17,466.57.

The defendant appealed, arguing the 50% reduction should have been applied to the $25,000 cap rather than the assessed damages.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the abandonment of a claim in excess of $25,000 under Rule 76 applies only to the final judgment amount, not the assessed damages.

Jockey Emile Ramsammy was summonsed by the Ontario Racing Commission Administration to testify at an appeal hearing but failed to appear.

A panel convened to consider his non-attendance.

After reviewing the summons and hearing submissions from counsel, the panel fined Mr. Ramsammy $1,000 pursuant to Thoroughbred Rule 24.01(d) for failing to attend and provide testimony when properly summonsed.

The appellant jockey appealed a decision of the Ontario Thoroughbred Racing Industry Appeal Board upholding a 3-day suspension for striking his mount on the head during a race.

The Ontario Racing Commission heard the appeal, reviewed videotape evidence, and dismissed the appeal, upholding the suspension.

The applicant withdrew his application for statutory accident benefits but sought his legal expenses for the arbitration.

The insurer opposed and sought costs against the applicant and his representatives, arguing the proceeding was an abuse of process.

The arbitrator denied the applicant's request for expenses, finding his conduct unreasonably prolonged the proceedings.

The arbitrator awarded the insurer $1,000 against the applicant under section 282(11.2) of the Insurance Act due to his failure to comply with undertakings and production orders.

The insurer's request for costs against the applicant's representatives was denied for lack of statutory authority.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received weekly non-income benefits until they were terminated by the insurer.

The applicant sought mediation and then arbitration, claiming entitlement to weekly benefits for an extended period due to neck pain, insomnia, and nightmares.

The arbitrator found that the applicant suffered a substantial inability to perform essential tasks for a limited period and awarded benefits for that time.

The insurer's claim for repayment of benefits was dismissed due to lack of evidence.

The applicant was also awarded prescription costs and arbitration expenses.