John May

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.

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 appellant distributor appealed a Tribunal decision finding it had improperly terminated a dealership agreement with the respondent dealer.

The Tribunal had awarded damages and costs to the dealer.

The Divisional Court held that the Tribunal correctly found that Regulation 123/06 under the Farm Implements Act applied retrospectively to the agreement.

The majority held that the Tribunal's findings regarding the interpretation of the agreement and the unreasonableness of the distributor's refusal to renew were questions of mixed fact and law, and therefore not subject to appeal.

However, the Court unanimously set aside the Tribunal's award of damages for obsolete assets as an error of law, and quashed the costs award, remitting it to the Tribunal for reconsideration.

The appellant, a farm implement dealer, appealed the non-renewal of its dealer agreement by the respondent manufacturer.

The Tribunal found that the respondent breached the Farm Implements Act and Ontario Regulation 123/06 by failing to provide the required written notice with full reasons and an opportunity to cure before deciding not to renew the agreement.

The Tribunal determined that the regulation applied retrospectively to the existing contract, removing the respondent's unfettered right to not renew.

The Tribunal awarded the appellant damages for loss of profits based on a two-year reasonable notice period and for obsolete assets, totaling $139,846 plus pre-judgment interest.

During the continuation of a hearing to consider damages, the appellant requested a voir dire regarding the admissibility of revised financial data and an expert report addendum.

The appellant had recently discovered that its original damages claim relied on projections rather than actual sales and expenses data now available.

The respondent objected on grounds of relevance and timing.

The Tribunal admitted the evidence, finding it prima facie relevant and concluding that the prejudice to the appellant of excluding it outweighed the prejudice to the respondent.

To mitigate any prejudice, the Tribunal granted a short adjournment, permitted further limited examination for discovery, and allowed the respondent to supplement its expert report.

At a pre-hearing conference following a Divisional Court order remitting certain liability issues back to the Tribunal, the Tribunal determined procedural matters for the resumed hearing.

The Tribunal ordered that CNH would lead evidence first on the remitted liability issues, as they arose from CNH's appeal.

The Tribunal also ordered that the liability and damages phases of the hearing, which had previously been bifurcated, be re-joined to avoid unnecessary delay and prejudice, noting that the original reasons for bifurcation no longer existed.

The applicant farm implement dealer brought a dispute against the respondent manufacturer regarding the end of their 19-year business relationship and warranty repair reimbursements.

The Tribunal divided the hearing into two phases, with Phase 1 focusing on liability.

The Tribunal found that the manufacturer did not breach section 18 of the Farm Implements Act regarding warranty reimbursements, as it paid the dealer in accordance with their existing agreement.

However, the Tribunal found that the manufacturer breached Ontario Regulation 123/06 by refusing to renew the dealership agreement, as the Regulation removed the manufacturer's contractual right to unilaterally non-renew and required that renewal approval not be unreasonably withheld.

The applicant farm equipment dealer brought a motion for production and discovery against a non-party trade association, seeking confidential market share data to challenge the respondent manufacturer's termination of their dealership agreement.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding the requested data was protected by the common law privilege of confidentiality and the applicant failed to establish the relevance and importance of the documents.

The Tribunal also refused leave to examine the non-party for discovery, noting it would cause undue delay and expense.

The applicant was ordered to pay the non-party's costs of the motion.

At a pre-hearing conference, the Tribunal addressed two contentious issues regarding evidence and discovery.

First, an intervener sought to file additional confidential documents after the deadline; the Tribunal directed them to bring a motion for leave.

Second, the appellant sought market data from another intervener who was treated as a non-party for discovery purposes; the Tribunal directed the appellant to bring a motion for third-party production under the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The Tribunal also issued orders on consent regarding expert reports, discovery undertakings, and scheduling.