Appeal under subsection 38(2) of the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, 2019, R.S.O. 2019, c. 13
Between:
Janie Brooke Rumm
Appellant
and
Chief Animal Welfare Inspector
Respondent
ORDER TO DISMISS
Order Made By: Susan Clarke, Member
Date of Order: September 13, 2021
DISMISSAL DECISION
1On September 2, 2021, the Animal Care Review Board (the “Board”) issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss the appellant’s appeal without a hearing on the grounds that the appellant’s appeal may be frivolous, vexatious, or commenced in bad faith, that the appeal may fall outside the Board’s jurisdiction and that the statutory requirements for bringing the appeal may have not been met.
2The appellant lives in a trailer home. On August 14, 2020, the Respondent removed thirty-three dogs from her home on the grounds they were in distress. A hearing was held by the Board on August 28, 2020, regarding the removal and a Statement of Account (the “Statement”), and an appeal decision was issued on November 18, 2020, finding that the removal order was appropriate and declining to return the appellant’s dogs. The Statement dated October 30, 2020, was varied, but the appeal dismissed. The appellant was ordered to make payment within 10 days.
3The appellant requested reconsideration of the appeal decision released on November 18, 2020 for the return of her animals. In the Board’s Decision released on January 15, 2021, the Board considered the appellant’s submissions and dismissed the request.
4On August 9, 2021, the respondent issued a second Statement to the appellant for the continued care of her dogs from October 31, 2020, until December 4, 2020, when having been forfeited for nonpayment of the original Statement, the dogs were transferred to the Humane Society (the “Second Statement”).
5The appellant appealed the Second Statement to the Board. In the first case conference held on August 30, 2021, a discrepancy in the Second Statement was identified by me, and on September 1, 2021, a revised Second Statement was issued to the appellant.
6The appellant’s appeal focused on history with the legal system (not before the Board) dating from 2018, and the earlier Board hearing, but did not provide any specific appeal grounds relating to the Second Statement. In the first case conference, and in the continuing case conference on September 1, 2021, the appellant stated that she would not pay any money until her dogs were returned to her.
RULES OF PRACTICE
7Rule 3.4 of the Common Rules1 provides that the Board may dismiss an appeal without a hearing when:
a) The appeal is frivolous, vexatious, or commenced in bad faith;
b) The appeal relates to matters that are outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction;
c) The statutory requirements for bringing the appeal have not been met; or
d) The appellant is found to have abandoned the proceeding.
8Rule 3.5 of the Common Rules sets out that each party has the right to make written submissions to the Board on the issue.
NOTICE OF INTENT TO DISMISS
9The Board issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss on September 2, 2021, giving the parties until September 7, 2021 at 12:00 p.m. to make submissions.
10Both parties made submissions.
POSITIONS
11The appellant’s submissions included various points, including that she does not have the money, and that she lost her rights of possession of her dogs on August 14, 2020 (removal date), and that she should not have to pay fees if she is not getting her dogs back. She continued to complain about a previous case before the courts.
12The respondent’s submissions state that the appeal has no merit and should be rejected as frivolous and vexatious because the Second Statement is reasonable as the per diem boarding fees used are the same as those deemed reasonable in the Board Decision (file 12864) issued November 18, 2020.
DECISION
13I dismiss this appeal without a hearing on the grounds that the appeal is frivolous, the appeal relates to matters outside the Board’s jurisdiction, and the statutory requirements for bringing the appeal have not been met.
14The Appellant is trying to re-litigate what was already determined in the earlier ACRB Decision and Order of File 12684/ACRB. She has focused her appeal on a desire to have her dogs returned to her, which is not a live issue in this appeal as it has already been determined by the previous appeal and a reconsideration of that appeal was denied by the Board. I find therefore that her appeal is frivolous.
15I find that the Appellant’s appeal has focused itself on a trial of an earlier Criminal Code charge, which is beyond the jurisdiction of the ACRB, where she continued throughout the two case conferences to stress that she is innocent of the charges and provides for the well-being of her dogs.
16Section 38(5) of the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, 2019 states that “a notice to the Board must set out the remedy or action sought and the reasons for the appeal or application”. While the Appellant has stated that she wants the remedy of her dogs returned to her, and the reasons for her appeal are that “she is not guilty”, neither of these addresses the second Statement. I find therefore that the statutory requirements for bringing the appeal have not been met.
CONCLUSION AND ORDER
17After considering the written submissions provided by the parties and for all the above reasons, the Board dismisses the appeal without a hearing.
ANIMAL CARE REVIEW BOARD
Susan Clarke, Member
Released: September 13, 2021