Jason Kirsh

The appellant appealed convictions for failing to comply with an animal welfare order and challenged the dismissal of its Charter stay motion for abuse of process.

The appeal argued that the prosecution became abusive after the Ministry issued a revocation notice, and that the motion judge misinterpreted s. 30(5) of the governing statute and conflated the abuse-of-process inquiry with the stay analysis.

The court held that the offences had crystallized before the revocation, that the statutory scheme did not nullify prior non-compliance, and that the prosecution did not offend societal notions of fair play and decency.

Although the justice of the peace conflated aspects of the abuse and stay analyses, the appeal court found no reversible error and in any event applied the curative proviso under the Provincial Offences Act.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicants brought a motion for a stay of a Divisional Court order, pending determination of their motion for leave to appeal.

The Divisional Court had dismissed their judicial review of an Animal Care Board decision approving costs for animal care.

The applicants sought the stay to prevent forfeiture of animals due to unpaid accounts.

The Court of Appeal applied the RJR-MacDonald test for stays, combined with principles for leave to appeal from Sault Dock Co. Ltd. The court found no serious issue to be tried, no irreparable harm (as the animals had already been forfeited), and that the balance of convenience did not favour a stay.

The motion was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the respondent.

The moving party sought a stay of an Animal Care Review Board decision pending her application for judicial review.

The Board had confirmed the removal of 41 cats from her home and a statement of account for their care.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for a stay, finding the issue moot because the animals had already been forfeited to the Crown by operation of statute due to non-payment of the statement of account.

Furthermore, the moving party failed to file an affidavit demonstrating irreparable harm or that the balance of convenience favoured a stay.

The appellant, an ODSP recipient, appealed three Social Benefits Tribunal decisions upholding the denial of funding for medical cannabis.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error of law.

The Director had no discretion to fund medical cannabis because it lacks a Drug Identification Number (DIN) and is not listed on the Ontario Drug Benefit formulary.

The Tribunal correctly concluded it lacked jurisdiction to grant Charter remedies and that the appellant's Human Rights Code discrimination claim had no reasonable prospect of success, as the denial of funding applied equally to all ODSP recipients.

The Chief Animal Welfare Inspector sought judicial review of two decisions by the Animal Care Review Board that varied statements of account for animal care to zero.

The Inspector undertook not to seek recovery of the funds or return of the animals, rendering the live dispute moot.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, declining to hear it on the basis that the Inspector had not exhausted adequate alternative remedies, specifically the Board's internal reconsideration process.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his habeas corpus application, arguing his detention was unlawful due to a new information adding charges without a new arrest and the failure to hold timely detention review hearings under s. 525 of the Criminal Code.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial court maintained jurisdiction over the appellant despite the new information, as he was lawfully before the court.

It further affirmed that the failure to hold a s. 525 detention review hearing does not automatically render detention unlawful; the appropriate remedy is an immediate review, which the appellant was offered and eventually received.

The court also found no abuse of process justifying a stay of proceedings.

Following the dismissal of an appeal as an abuse of process, the Crown sought costs.

The appellant, a declared vexatious litigant, had used an alias to subvert a prior order and commence the appeal without leave.

The court found the appellant's conduct reprehensible and outrageous, warranting full indemnity costs.

Costs were fixed at $6,000 payable to the Crown.

The Crown moved to dismiss an appeal brought by 'Maxine Adwella' against a decision of the Animal Care Review Board regarding the removal of abandoned pets.

The Crown argued that 'Maxine Adwella' was an alias for Althea Reyes, who had previously been declared a vexatious litigant and was prohibited from commencing proceedings without leave.

The court found that the appellant was indeed Althea Reyes using an alias to circumvent the vexatious litigant order.

The appeal was dismissed pursuant to Rule 2.1.03(1) and as an abuse of process.