Eric Gillespie

The appellants appealed the removal of over 200 dogs from their dog sledding business properties by Animal Welfare Services.

The dogs were removed following non-compliance with previous orders regarding tether lengths and dog house conditions.

The Board found that while some puppies were not in distress and must be returned immediately, the majority of the dogs were in distress due to inadequate tether lengths, lack of insulation, and poor state of repair of their shelters.

The Board ordered the return of the remaining dogs subject to the appellants achieving compliance with specific standards of care, including three-metre tethers and insulated dog houses.

The appellants run a dog sledding business from which over 200 dogs were removed by the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector.

The appellants brought a motion seeking the return of the dogs or a stay, based on the respondent's redaction of boarding facility and veterinarian information from disclosure on the grounds of public interest litigation privilege.

The Board found the redacted information was not protected by privilege, noting it had been disclosed in previous cases.

The Board ordered the respondent to provide the unredacted information to the appellants' counsel, subject to an undertaking not to release it to anyone else, including the appellants.

The Chief Animal Welfare Inspector (CAWI) brought motions to strike certain grounds of appeal raised by the appellants regarding the removal of over 200 dogs.

The CAWI sought to strike grounds relating to the conduct of inspectors during the removal and alleged Charter violations, arguing the Animal Care Review Board lacks jurisdiction over these matters.

The Board granted the motion to strike the grounds relating to inspector conduct, finding it has no jurisdiction to oversee inspector conduct under the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act.

The Board also determined it is not a court of competent jurisdiction under s. 24(1) of the Charter and struck the appellants' Charter arguments.

However, the Board dismissed the CAWI's request to preclude the appellants from calling evidence on issues from previous proceedings, finding that res judicata and issue estoppel did not apply because the issues in dispute were not identical.

The appellants, operators of a dog sledding and horse-riding business, appealed the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector's removal of over 200 dogs from their properties.

The appellants brought a motion seeking the return of the dogs and dismissal of the proceedings, or alternatively an interim stay, alleging untimely and incomplete disclosure by the respondent.

The Animal Care Review Board dismissed the motion, finding insufficient evidence of outstanding disclosure and concluding that the appellants failed to demonstrate actual prejudice to their ability to make full answer and defence.

The appellants, operators of a dog sledding business, brought a motion seeking the return of over 200 dogs removed by the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector or a stay of the removal orders.

They argued the search warrants leading to the removal were based on misleading Information to Obtain (ITOs).

The Animal Care Review Board dismissed the motion, finding it constituted an impermissible collateral attack on the Ontario Court of Justice, which issued the warrants.

The appellants, who run a dog sledding business, had over 200 dogs removed by the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector.

They brought a motion seeking the return of the dogs or a stay of the removal orders, arguing that a reasonable apprehension of bias existed because the Animal Care Review Board filed a factum in a related judicial review proceeding before the Divisional Court.

The adjudicator dismissed the motion, finding that the Board's factum did not demonstrate aggressive partisanship and that the test for a reasonable apprehension of bias applies to the individual decision-maker, not the entire tribunal.

The appellants, who run a dog sledding business, had over 200 dogs removed by the respondent Chief Animal Welfare Inspector due to alleged non-compliance with previous orders.

The appellants brought a motion seeking to inspect the dogs, arguing they needed to take their own measurements and expressing concern over the dogs' welfare after three dogs died in the respondent's care.

The Animal Care Review Board found it had jurisdiction to order an inspection under Rule 9.3(d) because the respondent intended to rely on measurements taken during the removal.

However, the Board declined to order the inspection, finding it would not be proportionate or efficient to inspect over 200 dogs for measurements, and noting that the appellants' welfare concerns would be addressed by a separate disclosure order.

The respondent Chief Animal Welfare Inspector brought two motions to strike grounds of appeal, including Charter claims, related to the removal of over 200 dogs from the appellants' dog sledding business.

The appellants requested an adjournment of the motions because a recent disclosure order required the respondent to produce extensive materials regarding the removal and care of the animals.

The Animal Care Review Board granted the adjournment, finding that the pending disclosure would facilitate a more open process and informed participation by providing factual context relevant to the motions.

The appellants, who run a dog sledding business, appealed the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector's decision to remove over 200 dogs from their properties.

The appellants brought a motion for further disclosure, including documentation of the removal, the subsequent care of the dogs, and the Informations to Obtain (ITOs) used for the search warrants.

The respondent refused, arguing the information was irrelevant.

The Animal Care Review Board granted the motion, finding the requested disclosure was relevant to whether the removal was lawful and necessary for a full understanding of the issues.

The appellants, owners of a dog sledding business, appealed the removal of over 200 dogs by the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector.

They brought a preliminary motion seeking the interim return of the dogs pending the full hearing, arguing that a multiplicity of proceedings between the parties offended natural justice.

The Animal Care Review Board dismissed the motion, finding that the other proceedings did not address the same issues and were mostly initiated by the appellants themselves.

Furthermore, under the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, the Board only has the authority to order the return of animals after a full hearing on the merits, unless both parties consent, which did not occur here.

This was the fifth Case Management Conference regarding an application by Freymond Lumber Ltd. for a Class A licence under the Aggregate Resources Act and an associated official plan amendment approved by the County of Hastings, which was appealed by No Place for a Quarry Inc. The Tribunal directed the parties to submit a hearing plan by September 8, 2021, and declined to amend the Procedural Order or Issues List at this time, leaving outstanding matters to be addressed at the commencement of the hearing.

The Animal Care Review Board considered requests for reconsideration from both the appellants and the respondent regarding a previous decision concerning the care of sled dogs.

The respondent sought to reinstate original compliance dates, arguing the Board erred by extending them without reasons or evidence.

The appellants argued the Board incorrectly interpreted the requirement in Regulation 444/19 that outdoor dogs must have a chain at least 3 meters long.

The Board dismissed both requests, finding no errors of law, fact, or procedural fairness that would warrant reconsideration under Rule 18.2 of the Common Rules.

The appellants appealed compliance orders issued by Animal Welfare Services regarding the care of approximately 240 sled dogs and 14 horses at their commercial dog sledding and horse-riding facilities.

The Board confirmed the orders relating to the dogs' tether lengths and shelter insulation, finding they did not meet the minimum standards under the Regulation, but varied the order regarding dog house dimensions.

The Board revoked the orders relating to the horses, finding they had adequate natural shelter and no statutory requirement for bedding existed.

The appellants' argument that the inspection warrants violated section 8 of the Charter was dismissed, as the inspectors did not search any dwellings and were authorized to inspect the commercial operation.

The Environmental Review Tribunal issued a procedural order adjourning the hearing regarding the Renewable Energy Approval for the Nation Rise Wind Farm on its own initiative for 44 days.

The Tribunal directed the parties to provide written closing submissions on health and wildlife issues according to the previously established schedule, and to propose a revised schedule for the completion of the hearing of groundwater evidence.

Following successful appeals that revoked a Renewable Energy Approval for a wind turbine project, the applicants sought costs against the Approval Holder and the Director of the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change.

The applicants alleged unreasonable and bad faith conduct prior to and during the hearing, including late filing of evidence and changing positions mid-hearing.

The Environmental Review Tribunal dismissed the costs applications, finding that conduct prior to the proceeding is not eligible for costs, and that the conduct during the hearing was not unreasonable, frivolous, vexatious, or in bad faith.

The applicant alleged that the respondents' transit fare structure, which provides discounts based on age but not for low-income adults between 20 and 64, discriminated against her on the basis of age.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and dismissed the application, finding no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal concluded that persons between 20 and 64 do not constitute an identifiable group that has experienced historic disadvantage relative to seniors or youth, and that providing discounted transit rates to those over 65 and under 20 does not perpetuate prejudice or disadvantage.

The Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte (MBQ) brought a motion to review an earlier Tribunal order that dismissed their application for costs against Waste Management of Canada Corporation.

MBQ argued that the Tribunal erred in law by failing to consider their unique circumstances as a First Nation at the first stage of the costs analysis (determining whether conduct was unreasonable).

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding no error of law in the original panel's application of the three-stage costs analysis under the Statutory Powers Procedure Act and the Tribunal's Rules.

The appellants appealed the Director's decision to issue a Renewable Energy Approval for a wind facility, arguing it would cause serious and irreversible harm to the Little Brown Bat and Blanding's turtle.

In the remedy phase, the Approval Holder proposed mitigation plans to address the Tribunal's previous findings of harm.

The Tribunal found it had jurisdiction to consider the mitigation plans and applied the precautionary principle.

The Tribunal accepted the bat mitigation plan with a modification to extend turbine curtailment to sunrise.

However, the Tribunal found the proposed road restoration measures for Blanding's turtle were novel and unstudied, and therefore removed the turbines associated with those road upgrades from the approval.

During the remedy phase of an appeal regarding a Renewable Energy Approval for a wind facility, the appellant brought motions to qualify a witness as an expert, admit new documentary evidence, and control the cross-examination of a respondent's witness.

The Tribunal granted the expert qualification in part, admitted some of the new evidence that was not previously obtainable, and dismissed the motion regarding the cross-examination, finding no improper conduct by opposing counsel.

The appellants appealed a Renewable Energy Approval for a wind facility.

The Tribunal previously found the appellants satisfied the Health Test and Environment Test.

The approval holder requested an opportunity to produce evidence and make submissions on the appropriate remedy regarding the Environment Test.

The appellants opposed, arguing the approval should be revoked immediately based on the Health Test finding.

The Tribunal granted the request for a remedy hearing, finding it necessary to ensure a just determination of all issues and to fully exercise its jurisdiction before making a final disposition.