Peter Simmons

The appellant requested a reconsideration of a Board decision that dismissed his appeal of a Statement of Account for being filed late.

The appellant argued the Board made a jurisdictional error and violated procedural fairness because the notice he received was insufficient and the Board should have considered his reasons for the delay.

The Board found no error in calculating the time to appeal, noting the appellant provided no evidence that the notice was insufficient.

The Board also confirmed it has no statutory authority to extend the 10-day appeal period.

The request for reconsideration was dismissed.

The applicant applied to the Animal Care Review Board for the return of his cat, Odin, who was removed by Animal Welfare Services after the applicant's other cat died from falling off a 24th-floor balcony.

The Board found that the applicant failed to demonstrate that the conditions leading to Odin's removal had ceased to exist.

Specifically, the applicant had not addressed the balcony hazard and lacked a credible plan to provide necessary veterinary care for Odin's multiple health issues.

The application for the return of the animal was dismissed.

The appellant requested a reconsideration of a Fire Safety Commission decision that ordered her to cease activities and remove workshop materials from a former place of worship.

The appellant raised 13 grounds for reconsideration, alleging procedural unfairness, jurisdictional overreach, and errors of law and fact.

The Commission found that the appellant failed to meet the criteria for reconsideration under Rule 18.2, noting that the Commission did not violate procedural fairness, act outside its jurisdiction, or make errors of law or fact.

The request for reconsideration and the request for a stay were denied.

Animal Welfare Services inspected the appellant's property and subsequently removed 46 cattle.

The appellant appealed the decision to remove the cattle.

However, the appellant had sold the cattle to a third party prior to their removal.

The Chief Animal Welfare Inspector brought a motion to dismiss the appeal as moot.

The Animal Care Review Board granted the motion, finding that because the appellant was no longer the owner of the cattle, the Board had no jurisdiction to order their return, rendering the appeal moot.

The Board declined to exercise its discretion to hear the moot appeal.

The appellant sought an extension of time to appeal a Fire Marshal Review decision regarding an inspection order for his property.

The appellant filed his original appeal past the 15-day deadline and subsequently filed a motion for an extension of time 12 days past the 30-day statutory limit for such motions.

The Fire Safety Commission dismissed the motion, finding the appellant failed to establish apparent grounds for the appeal or reasonable grounds for the delay, noting his explanations regarding feasibility studies and legal implications lacked detail and his intentions regarding the property had changed.

The appellant appealed a Statement of Account (SOA) issued by Animal Welfare Services for boarding and veterinary care provided to her two injured dogs after they were removed due to distress.

The adjudicator found that the respondent met its burden to prove the costs were actual and reasonable, relying on expert veterinary testimony, except for a portion of the digital x-ray charges which lacked sufficient documentation.

The SOA was varied from $2,228.04 to $2,079.49.

The appellant appealed a Fire Marshal Review Order confirming an inspection order that required the removal of an auto repair occupancy from a building classified as an assembly occupancy (a former place of worship).

The Fire Safety Commission found that while the appellant was not performing traditional auto repair, the space was being used as a workshop to modify automobile parts, introducing hazards not contemplated in the building's original design.

The Commission amended the order to explicitly require the cessation of workshop activities and the removal of all associated equipment, flammable liquids, and materials.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector to keep her dog, which had been removed due to critical distress.

The respondent brought a motion to dismiss the appeal as moot because the appellant failed to appeal or pay the statement of account within the statutory deadlines, resulting in the dog's automatic forfeiture to the Crown.

The Animal Care Review Board granted the motion, finding it had no jurisdiction to return an animal once forfeited, rendering the appeal moot.

The Board declined to exercise its discretion to hear the moot appeal.

The appellants requested a reconsideration of a previous Animal Care Review Board decision that dismissed their appeals and applications for the return of their dogs, cats, and horse.

The appellants argued the Board acted outside its jurisdiction, made errors of law or fact, and that new evidence was available.

The Board dismissed the reconsideration request, finding it did not act outside its jurisdiction, the minor factual errors made did not affect the outcome, and the alleged new evidence was available prior to the original hearing.

The appellant appealed a Statement of Account issued by Animal Welfare Services for $68,284.85 relating to the boarding, veterinary care, and animal care of 21 horses removed due to distress.

The appellant disputed the boarding costs, arguing that indoor boarding was unnecessary and the rates were exorbitant compared to outdoor boarding.

The Animal Care Review Board found the choice of boarding facility rational given the need for immediate capacity and safety.

The Board concluded that the respondent met its evidentiary burden to prove the costs were reasonable and confirmed the Statement of Account in full.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector to keep his dog in care following its removal and subsequent surgery.

The appellant failed to appeal or pay the statement of account for the dog's care within the statutory deadlines, resulting in the dog's automatic forfeiture to the Crown.

The respondent moved to dismiss the appeal as moot.

The Animal Care Review Board granted the motion, finding it lacked jurisdiction to return an animal after forfeiture and declining to exercise its discretion to hear the moot appeal.

The appellant appealed a Statement of Account (SOA) in the amount of $38,902.44 issued by the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector for transportation, boarding, veterinary, and animal care costs related to 21 horses removed from the appellant's property.

The appellant argued the costs were unnecessary and excessive.

The Animal Care Review Board found the transportation, boarding, and veterinary costs were reasonable and necessary.

However, the Board varied the SOA to $38,499.69, reflecting a reduction in farrier services consented to by the respondent.

The appellants appealed decisions by the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector to keep five dogs, one cat, and one horse in care after they were removed from a moving truck in high heat without adequate food, water, or ventilation.

The Animal Care Review Board found that the animals were in distress at the time of removal and that the appellants lacked the appropriate accommodations, boarding arrangements, and veterinary expertise to properly care for them.

The Board dismissed the appeals and declined to order the return of the animals, concluding they would be placed in distress if returned.

The appellant appealed a Statement of Account (SOA) for $4,629.40 issued by Animal Welfare Services for emergency veterinary care provided to his dog.

The dog required an emergency C-section, which the appellant could not afford, prompting the removal of the dog and the subsequent surgery.

The Animal Care Review Board found that the removal was lawful and necessary, and that the costs incurred were reasonable and supported by expert testimony.

The appeal was dismissed and the SOA was confirmed.

The appellant property owner appealed an inspection order requiring the installation of secondary exits for two apartments in a multi-unit residential building.

The appellant argued that existing windows in the units complied with the Ontario Building Code and should be accepted as secondary exits under the Ontario Fire Code.

The Fire Safety Commission found no evidence that the windows were approved as secondary exits under the Building Code and held that the Fire Code does not permit windows to serve as exits for this type of building.

The Commission amended the order to explicitly allow for alternative measures approved by the Chief Fire Official and extended the compliance date.

The appellant appealed a Statement of Account in the amount of $7,491.28 issued by Animal Welfare Services for veterinary and boarding costs related to her dog.

The dog was removed from the appellant's care after she failed to comply with an order to seek veterinary treatment for the dog's broken leg, which ultimately required amputation.

The Animal Care Review Board confirmed the Statement of Account, finding that the costs were reasonable, reflected actual necessaries provided to relieve the dog's distress, and were incurred due to the appellant's non-compliance and inability to provide proper care.

The appellant appealed a Statement of Account (SOA) for $2,344.60 issued by Animal Welfare Services for veterinary care provided to a dog removed under the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act.

The dog was seized after the owner attempted to remove it from a veterinary hospital against medical advice while it was in critical distress.

The Board found the removal was lawful and necessary, and that the respondent proved the majority of the veterinary costs were reasonable and actual.

The Board varied the SOA to $2,162.88, deducting one unsupported ward fee.

The appellant requested a reconsideration of a previous Animal Care Review Board decision that upheld the removal of four cats in distress and confirmed a statement of account.

The appellant argued that the Board violated procedural fairness by denying adjournments, made errors of fact and law, heard false evidence, and failed to consider new evidence regarding compliance orders.

The Board dismissed the reconsideration request, finding that the appellant failed to establish any of the criteria under Rule 18.2 of the Common Rules of Practice and Procedure.

The appellant requested a reconsideration of an Animal Care Review Board decision that confirmed a compliance order, dismissed an appeal of a notice of removal for 40 cats, and confirmed a statement of account.

The appellant argued the Board made errors of fact, heard false evidence from an inspector, and violated procedural fairness due to technical issues during the hearing.

The Board dismissed the reconsideration request, finding no errors of law or fact, no false evidence, and no violation of procedural fairness.

The appellant requested a reconsideration of a previous Animal Care Review Board decision that upheld the removal of 17 dogs from his property.

The appellant argued the Board made an error of fact regarding the installation of an air conditioner and heard false evidence about empty water bowls.

The Board dismissed the request, finding no persuasive evidence to support the appellant's claims and noting that a reconsideration is not an opportunity to rehear a case.