Facts are facts – where an administrative body’s rules create a strict liability offence, the fact of the offence results in liability. There is no liability defence of due diligence available

19. January 2021 0
Ontario Superior Court of Justice upholds horse racing appeal panel decision not to waive a violation of the rules of thoroughbred racing because the applicant had not administered a banned substance to his horse, the detection of which resulted in the rule violation. Administrative law – Decisions reviewed – Horse Racing – Judicial review application ...

The applicant, an owner of thoroughbred racehorses, had his horseracing and stabling privileges at the Woodbine racetrack revoked by the respondent, Woodbine Entertainment Group (“WEG”) following a training incident in which a horse suffered catastrophic injuries to his front leg and was ultimately euthanized. The applicant appealed his suspension to the respondent, Ontario Racing Commission (“ORC”), and requested that they intervene and restore his privileges. The ORC determined that, while it had the jurisdiction to hear the matter insofar as it related to the good of horseracing and involved the public interest, the applicant had not made out a basis for the ORC to intervene in WEG’s decision.

23. August 2011 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Horse Racing – Public interest – Judicial review – Parties – Jurisdiction – Intervenor status – Procedural requirements and fairness – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter Schickedanz v. Ontario (Racing Commission), [2011] O.J. No. 3262, 2011 ONSC 4271, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, July 12, 2011, P.A. ...

The appellant owned race tracks. The respondent owned race horses. The appellant refused to permit the respondent to race his horses at its tracks unless he signed its Access Agreement (“agreement”) which provided the terms of entry and a formula for sharing wagering revenue. The respondent refused to sign the agreement and sought a declaration from the Ontario Racing Commission (“Commission”) that he could not be required to sign the agreement. The Commission dismissed the application. Upon judicial review, the Divisional Court found the decision to be unreasonable and ordered that appellant be prohibited from excluding the respondent’s horses solely on the basis that he did not sign the agreement. In this case, the appellant appealed the Divisional Court’s decision and the Ontario Court of Appeal restored the Commission’s original decision.

24. May 2011 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Horse Racing – Racing Commission – Government – Gaming and betting – Public interest – Judicial review – Natural justice – Procedural requirements and fairness – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter Whelan v. Ontario (Racing Commission), [2011] O.J. No. 1748, 2011 ONCA 299, Ontario Court of ...

The Ontario Racing Commission (the “Commission”) was successful in its appeal from the Divisional Court’s Judicial Review decision overturning the Commission’s earlier decision finding Austin guilty of having provided an improper (cold) urine sample

23. October 2007 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Horse Racing – Drivers – Testing for illegal substances – Horse racers – Disciplinary proceedings – Professional misconduct or conduct unbecoming – Hearings – Evidence – Judicial review – Bias Austin v. Ontario (Racing Commission), [2007] O.J. No. 3249, Ontario Court of Appeal, August 30, 2007, M. Rosenberg, ...

The Applicant sought relief from the Court from an Appeal Tribunal that upheld the decision of a Board of Judges that found the Applicant was in violation of the Rules of Racing established by Horse Racing Alberta. The Court found that the appropriate standard of review was correctness. The Court quashed the Appeal Tribunal’s decision, and granted an Order of mandamus directing that there be no further action taken against the Applicant.

27. February 2007 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Horse Racing – Hearings – Conduct of hearings – Judicial review – Evidence – Admissibility – Procedural requirements and fairness – Standard of review – Correctness – Remedies – Mandamus Hennessy v. Horse Racing Alberta, [2006] A.J. No. 1613, Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench, December 15, 2006, Sanderman J. The ...

The Applicant was a trainer of thoroughbred horses who made an allegation that his horse had been fouled in a race. The Appeal Tribunal concluded that there had been no foul and the Applicant filed for judicial review on the grounds that the decision was patently unreasonable and that natural justice had been breached due to the tribunal’s bias. The court concluded that on the basis of the record, the members of the Appeal Tribunal made their decision in a fair manner and that there was no reasonable apprehension of bias.

24. June 2003 0
Administrative law – Horse racing – Judicial review – Administrative decisions – Natural justice – Bias – Familiarity – Jurisdiction – Standard of review – Patent unreasonableness Greenwood v. Alberta (Appeals Tribunal), [2003] A.J. No. 471, Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench, April 15, 2003, Belzil J. The Applicant was a trainer of a thoroughbred horse that ...