Jason Kirsh

The appellant, convicted of second-degree murder, brought a motion under s. 683(1)(a) of the Criminal Code for the production of police records relating to the officer in charge of his homicide investigation.

The officer had a history of misconduct, including stealing opiate drugs from evidence lockers and crime scenes.

The Court of Appeal granted the motion in part, ordering the Toronto Police Service and Ontario Provincial Police to produce records relating to the officer's conduct in the appellant's specific investigation to the court for review.

The court dismissed the request for records relating to unrelated investigations, finding it speculative.

The officer was granted limited intervener status to assert privacy interests in the records.

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 Notice of Removal of his dog by Animal Welfare Services.

Following the removal, the appellant was served with a Statement of Account for veterinary care costs, which he neither paid nor appealed within the statutory deadlines.

Consequently, the dog was forfeited to the Crown by operation of the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act.

The respondent brought a motion to dismiss the appeal.

The Board held that it lacked jurisdiction to return a forfeited animal, rendering the appeal moot.

Applying the Borowski test, the Board declined to exercise its discretion to hear the moot appeal, noting the lack of an adversarial context and the need for judicial economy.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant requested a reconsideration of a previous Animal Care Review Board decision that reduced a Statement of Account from $23,420.25 to $5,855.06.

The appellant sought to introduce a 2024 income tax assessment to further support her claim of financial hardship.

The Board dismissed the request, finding that the tax document was available at the time of the original hearing and did not constitute new evidence.

The Board noted that the original decision had already considered the appellant's financial circumstances.

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 requested a reconsideration of a Board order that dismissed his appeal of a Statement of Account for being filed past the 10-business day statutory deadline.

The appellant argued the Board erred in fact and reasoning by not accepting that his appeal was emailed on time but delayed by server errors.

The Board dismissed the reconsideration request, finding no error of law or fact, noting that the appellant failed to prove the email was received by the deadline and that statutory timelines cannot be waived.

The Board also rejected new evidence and a new ground of appeal regarding deemed service under the PAWS Act.

The appellant appealed a Statement of Account for veterinary costs incurred by the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector after a sick puppy was removed from her care.

The appellant argued she was not the owner and could not afford the costs.

The Board found the appellant had sufficient custody and control of the puppy to be held responsible for the costs, and that the costs were reasonable and actually incurred.

However, considering the appellant's financial hardship as a new, unemployed mother, the Board varied the Statement of Account, reducing the amount owed by 75 percent.

The appellant appealed a decision by Animal Welfare Services to keep her dog in care and a Statement of Account for veterinary and boarding costs.

The dog was seized after the appellant left a veterinary clinic without paying for emergency surgery due to financial constraints.

The Board found that it was not necessary to keep the dog in care to alleviate distress post-surgery, and there were no reasonable grounds to believe the dog would be placed in distress if returned.

The Board ordered the dog returned to the appellant and varied the Statement of Account from $4,064.28 to $3,305.01 by deducting duplicate charges, unproven medication costs, and boarding fees incurred after the dog should have been returned.

The appellants appealed a final Statement of Account (SOA) in the amount of $1,431,180.00 issued by the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector for the boarding costs of 229 dogs removed from their properties.

The Board found that the respondent met its initial evidentiary burden to prove the costs were incurred and reasonable, as the $20.00 per dog per day rate was significantly less than the actual boarding costs.

The appellants failed to prove that the dogs were not provided with adequate care, that the amounts were inappropriate, or that the SOA should be varied due to financial hardship.

The Board confirmed the final SOA in full.

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 appellant appealed two statements of account totaling over $7,800 for veterinary costs incurred after her dog was removed by an animal welfare inspector for emergency surgery.

The appellant did not attend the hearing.

The Animal Care Review Board found that while the respondent established the actual costs incurred, it failed to meet its initial evidentiary burden to prove the costs were reasonable, as it provided no evidence regarding typical or industry standard fees for the services.

Consequently, the Board varied both statements of account to $0.00.

The appellant appealed an order issued by Animal Welfare Services requiring her 13-year-old dog to undergo a full dental assessment under anesthesia, including necessary extractions and scaling.

The appellant argued the procedure was unnecessary and risky due to the dog's age, proposing instead to manage the condition with antibiotics and pain medication.

The Animal Care Review Board confirmed the order, finding that the dog was in distress due to severe untreated periodontal disease and that the appellant's proposed palliative care was not adequate or appropriate medical attention to relieve the distress.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector to keep his dog in care after it was removed due to an eye injury.

The respondent brought a motion to dismiss the appeal as moot, arguing the dog had been forfeited to the Crown under s. 35(4)(a) of the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act because the appellant failed to appeal or pay the statement of account within the prescribed time.

The Board found the appeal was moot as it lacked jurisdiction to return a forfeited animal.

Applying the Borowski framework, the Board declined to exercise its discretion to hear the moot appeal, finding no remaining adversarial context and that hearing it would be an inefficient use of resources.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a Statement of Account (SOA) issued by Animal Welfare Services for the costs of boarding and veterinary care for 10 cats removed from her home due to unsanitary and hoarding conditions.

The appellant argued the costs were too high and some medical tests were unnecessary.

The Animal Care Review Board found the costs were reasonable, necessary, and in some cases below market value, relying on the respondent's expert veterinary evidence.

The appeal was dismissed and the SOA was confirmed at $14,966.81.

The respondent brought a motion to dismiss the appellant's appeal of a Statement of Account relating to the removal of 47 exotic birds.

The appellant had previously missed the statutory deadline to appeal the removal itself and sought to challenge the lawfulness of the removal and raise Charter arguments through the Statement of Account appeal.

The Animal Care Review Board granted the motion and dismissed the appeal, finding that challenging the underlying removal in a Statement of Account appeal constitutes an impermissible collateral attack.

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 appellant appealed a Decision to Keep (DTK) and applied for the return of 21 thoroughbred horses seized by Animal Welfare Services.

The horses were removed after a veterinarian advised they were in distress due to inadequate nutrition, lack of medical and farrier care, and poor environmental conditions including hazardous fencing and insufficient shelter.

The Animal Care Review Board found that the DTK was necessary to relieve the horses' distress and that returning them would place them back in distress.

The Board dismissed the appeal and the application, concluding the appellant failed to prove the conditions causing the distress had ceased to exist.

The appellant appealed the removal of 21 horses from his rented farm by Animal Welfare Services (AWS).

AWS removed the horses after receiving complaints that horses had escaped onto a neighbouring property and a road, and after a veterinarian issued a certificate stating the horses were in distress due to inadequate fencing that had previously caused injury and death to other horses.

The Animal Care Review Board found that the horses were in distress, the removal was conducted in accordance with the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, and the removal was necessary to relieve the distress.

The appeal was dismissed and the request for the return of the horses was denied.

The Chief Animal Welfare Inspector brought a motion to dismiss the appellant's appeal of a statement of account and application for the return of 86 cats.

The Board found the statement of account appeal was moot because the statement had been revoked, and declined to exercise its discretion to hear it.

The Board also found it lacked jurisdiction to order the return of the cats because they had already been forfeited to the Crown due to the appellant's failure to pay previous statements of account.

The motion was granted and the proceedings were dismissed.

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.