Robert Patchett

The appellants filed a request for reconsideration of a Board decision that dismissed their appeal of a Decision to Keep animals as moot.

The original appeal was dismissed because the animals had been forfeited to the Crown after the appellants failed to pay or appeal a Statement of Account.

The appellants argued procedural unfairness and error of fact, claiming they were unprepared for the motion hearing and confused about the process as self-represented parties.

The Board dismissed the reconsideration request, finding no procedural unfairness, as the appellants had notice of the motion and declined more time to prepare.

The Board also found no error of law or fact, noting that forfeiture occurred automatically by statute and the Board lost jurisdiction to order the return of the animals.

The appellant appealed a Statement of Account issued by the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector for the boarding costs of lambs born in care after the appellant's animals were removed.

The Animal Care Review Board found that the first invoice accurately reflected boarding fees, but the second invoice appeared to reflect animal care costs rather than boarding fees.

The Board varied the Statement of Account, reducing the total amount payable from $1,639.63 to $1,261.08.

The Appellant appealed the special education placement of his child.

After repeatedly seeking to delay the hearing and failing to attend scheduled case management and hearing dates, the Appellant filed a last-minute motion for an indefinite adjournment.

The Tribunal dismissed the adjournment motion, finding no persuasive reason for delay and noting the Appellant's failure to provide supporting medical documentation.

The Tribunal concluded that the Appellant had effectively abandoned the appeal through his non-attendance and dismissed the appeal.

An interim publication ban and sealing order were confirmed to protect the child's identity.

The Chief Animal Welfare Inspector brought a motion to dismiss the appellants' appeal of a Decision to Keep Animals.

The animals had been removed due to distress and subsequently forfeited to the Crown under s. 35(4) of the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act because the appellants failed to appeal or pay the Statement of Account within the prescribed time.

Applying the Borowski framework, the Animal Care Review Board found the appeal was moot as it could no longer order the return of the animals.

The Board declined to exercise its discretion to hear the moot appeal and granted the motion to dismiss.

The appellant appealed the special education placement of his child to the Ontario Special Education Tribunal.

He subsequently brought a motion to stay the Tribunal's proceedings while he sought leave to appeal a related Divisional Court decision to the Court of Appeal.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion for a stay, noting that the Court of Appeal had previously found no merit to the potential appeal and emphasizing that it was in the child's best interests for the matter to proceed to a hearing on the merits without delay.

The appellant requested a stay of their special education appeal proceedings pending the outcome of a proposed application for judicial review of an earlier interim decision that dismissed a bias motion.

The Tribunal denied the request for a stay, noting that no judicial review application had yet been filed and that delaying the proceedings would prejudice the child, who was currently being home-schooled, by delaying a final determination on their placement.

The self-represented appellant brought a motion requesting that the hearing panel recuse themselves due to a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The appellant alleged bias after the panel chair directed that written submissions might be required on whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to order the requested placement, and because the chair was cross-appointed to another tribunal.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that an informed person would not conclude that the panel's actions, which included attempting to assist the appellant in focusing on relevant evidence and exercising its authority to determine a jurisdictional issue, demonstrated a reasonable apprehension of bias.