ANIMAL CARE REVIEW BOARD
Tribunals Ontario
COMMISSION D’ÉTUDE DES SOINS AUX ANIMAUX Tribunaux décisionnels Ontario
Appeal under section 38 of the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, 2019. R.S.O. 2019, c.13
Between:
Robert Kamstra Appellant
and
Chief Animal Welfare Inspector Respondent
RECONSIDERATION DECISION
Adjudicator: Jeanie Theoharis, Associate Chair
Heard by way of Written Submissions:
For the Appellant: Self-represented For the Respondent: none requested
REASONS FOR RECONSIDERATION DECISION AND ORDER
OVERVIEW
1The appellant, Robert Kamstra (Mr. Kamstra), requested a reconsideration of the Animal Care Review Board (“Board”)’s decision issued December 2, 2020, confirming the orders issued under s. 31 of the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act (“Act”) to seize his animals and changing the compliance date for the examination of his pot-bellied pigs.
2The orders, issued under s. 30(1) of the Act on July 30, 2020, required that Mr. Kamstra, the owner of six cattle, two goats, one chicken and four pot-bellied pigs, take certain steps to alleviate the distress of these animals. On August 7, 2020, Inspector Weirzbicki conducted a compliance check. He then ordered that all the animals, except for the pigs, be seized pursuant to s. 31(1) of the Act due to non-compliance with the July 30, 2020 orders.
RESULT
3For the reasons that follow, I dismiss the appellant’s request for reconsideration.
LAW
4The appellant filed a request for reconsideration based on all four grounds noted in Rule 18 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal, Animal Care Review Board, and Fire Safety Commission Common Rules of Practice and Procedure, Version I (October 2, 2017) (the “Rules”).
5In order to grant reconsideration, I must be satisfied that one or more of the following grounds are met (Rule 18.2 of the Rules):
a. The Board acted outside its jurisdiction or violated the rules of procedural fairness;
b. The Board made an error of law or fact such that the Board would likely have reached a different result had the error not been made;
c. The Board heard false evidence from a party or witness, which was discovered only after the hearing and likely affected the result; or
d. There is evidence that was not before the Board when rendering its decision, could not have been obtained previously by the party now seeking to introduce it, and would likely have affected the result.
6Upon reconsidering a decision of the Board, the Board may: (a) dismiss the request; or (b) after providing responding parties an opportunity to make submissions, (i) confirm, vary, or cancel the decision or order; or (ii) order a rehearing on all or part of the matter (Rule 18.4 of the Rules).
7The onus is on the party seeking reconsideration to establish one or more of the grounds set out in Rule 18 for reconsideration to be successful.
8The appellant submits in his written submission filed with the Board that the Board erred in interpreting the information presented at the hearing or did not consider relevant information, and that the rules of procedural fairness were violated because he did not receive disclosure by the dates specified in a case conference order.
ANALYSIS
9A request for reconsideration is not an opportunity to merely request another hearing or to reargue his case on appeal. The party making the request must provide sufficient evidence and information to establish that a ground noted in Rule 18 has been satisfied. I find that the appellant has not established any of the grounds noted in Rule 18.
a. Jurisdiction and Procedural Fairness
10The appellant does not argue that the Board acted outside its jurisdiction. However, the appellant does argue that the Board violated the rules of procedural fairness by failing to consider the appellant’s evidence and submissions, and that he did not receive disclosure as per the dates specified in the case conference order.
11The evidence presented at the hearing by both parties was the evidence the member took into consideration when rendering her decision. A member does not need to express and address every piece of evidence and submission provided by the parties. Both the appellant and respondent were given full opportunity to present evidence. A review of the decision indicates that the member carefully considered all the evidence presented and reached conclusions based on the evidence presented.
12The appellant fails to articulate any detail as to the evidence the appellant erroneously considered, failed to consider or otherwise. A mere statement that the member erred in rendering her decision, without sufficient submissions to support his assertion does not satisfy the appellant’s onus on a request for reconsideration.
13The appellant also failed to establish that the Board violated the rules of procedural fairness due to the disclosure of documents not being exchanged as per the case conference order.
14On the first day of the hearing, the member considered the preliminary issue related to late disclosure of documents and, to alleviate any prejudice to the parties, adjourned the hearing to allow for the exchange of documents. Moreover, on the reconvening of the hearing on the following day, the appellant confirmed having received all disclosure, indicated it was unfair that the order had not been complied with, but did not raise any prejudice that prevented him from continuing with the hearing. The member was satisfied that the parties could proceed with the hearing despite the late disclosure of documents given that Mr. Kamstra had the orders in his possession prior to the commencement of this appeal.
15The member acted in a reasonable manner in addressing the failure to exchange documents in accordance with the case conference order. The adjournment to provide for the exchange of documents and canvassing the parties as to their ability to proceed was reasonable. The order further indicates that they key documents provided by the respondent were the orders that had been issued to the appellant by the inspector prior to the commencement of the appeal on the day they were issued. I find that the Board did not violate the rules of procedural fairness when addressing the late disclosure of documents.
b. Error of Fact or Law such that the Board would likely have reached a different result had the error not been made
16The appellant submits that the Board erred in law or fact by getting some of the information wrong, not considering the lack of warrant in this inspection, and not taking into consideration the appellant’s right to eat. For the Board to interfere with the member’s decision, the decision must reveal an error of law or fact that if corrected would cause the Board to come to a different conclusion. I am satisfied that the decision does not contain any such error of law or fact.
17The burden of proof is on the appellant to prove that the member misinterpreted information such that it would render a different result in the decision. The appellant has not satisfied this onus.
18The appellant indicates in his request for reconsideration that the member ‘got some of her information wrong or did not take the right notes like no warrant … plus my rights to eat…’ The appellant does not elaborate any further on the information he suspects was misinterpreted.
19A review of the decision indicates that the member considered the evidence and submissions presented by both parties and analyzed the issues required to render a reasonable decision. In particular, the member considered the evidence related to the ownership of the animals, including the conflicting evidence surrounding this issue, Mr. Kamstra’s inability to own animals, the observation of dead animals at the site, and the distress of the seized animals.
20The member considered the evidence of all parties when rendering her decision. The member explained her findings of fact and conclusions reached. I am satisfied that there is no error of fact or law.
21The grounds for reconsideration are limited and specific. The appellant has not satisfied his onus to establish any ground for reconsideration.
CONCLUSION
22The appellant’s reconsideration request is dismissed.
Released: January 11, 2021
Jeanie Theoharis, Associate Chair