Animal Care Review Board

Safety, Licensing Appeals and Standards Tribunals Division

Commission d’étude des soins aux animaux

Division de la sécurité, des appels en matière de permis et des normes

Date: 2020-06-10

Appeal under subsection 38(1) of the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, 2019, R.S.O. 2019, c.13

Between:

Howard Harper Appellant

and

Chief Animal Welfare Inspector Respondent

Decision and Order

Facilitator: Jeanie Theoharis, Member Animal Care Review Board

Appearances: For the Appellant: Did not appear For the Respondent: Connie Mallory, Agent Scott Frail, Animal Welfare Inspector

Held by Teleconference: June 5, 2020

Overview

1Howard Harper (the “Appellant”) appeals an order of the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector dated March 24, 2020, issued pursuant to section 31 of the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act 2019¹ (the “Act”). The Inspector’s order resulted in the removal of three dogs and one cat from Mr. Harper’s residence to provide them with necessaries to relieve their distress.

Procedural History

2A case conference took place on April 9, 2020. Mr. Harper attended and advised the Board member that he was taking steps to clean the premises and have a reinspection of the property. A hearing was scheduled to take place on April 27, 2020. The Appellant could not attend due to health reasons, so the hearing was adjourned.

3A further case conference was scheduled for May 27, 2020. The Appellant did not appear. Further to the case conference order, a hearing was scheduled to take place on June 5, 2020 and was marked peremptory on the Appellant. The Appellant was advised by the Board that he had until June 3, 2020 to file any materials he intended to rely upon at the hearing.

4The Appellant did not attend the hearing on June 5, 2020.

Analysis

5I find that the Appellant has abandoned his appeal of the removal order for the following reasons:

6The Notice of Hearing was delivered to the Appellant by email on May 29, 2020. The Notice stated the hearing date of June 5, 2020 and indicated that if a party fails to attend the hearing, the Board may proceed in the party’s absence and make a decision without further notice to the party. The June 5, 2020 hearing was marked peremptory on the Appellant. Neither the Appellant nor a representative on his behalf filed any further documents.

7The hearing proceeded on June 5, 2020. At the hearing, the respondent’s agent, Connie Mallory, requested that the appeal be dismissed. She stated that Mr. Harper indicated that he would be prepared for a further inspection, but he never contacted the respondent to arrange for a further inspection. The animals have therefore remained in the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector’s care since March 24, 2020.

8The hearing was held down for approximately 40 minutes to allow the Board to attempt to reach the Appellant. Attempts were made to reach the Appellant by phone and email. The Board was unsuccessful in their attempts to reach the Appellant. Neither the Appellant nor any representative for the Appellant reached out to the Board to indicate a reason for his non-attendance at the hearing.

Conclusion

9The Appellant has not contacted the respondent for a further inspection of his premises, he has not filed any further material and did not attend the hearing, despite receiving a Notice of Hearing. The Board has not received further communication from the Appellant to indicate a reason for his absence at the hearing nor did he request an adjournment. I am satisfied that the Appellant does not intend to pursue the appeal of this order.

Order

10The appeal is dismissed as abandoned.

Footnotes

1. 1S.O. 2019, c. 13