ANIMAL CARE REVIEW BOARD
Tribunals Ontario
COMMISSION D’ÉTUDE DES SOINS AUX ANIMAUX Tribunaux décisionnels Ontario
Appeal under s. 38 of the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, R.S.O., 2019, c.13
Between:
Brooke Rumm
Appellant
and
Chief Animal Welfare Inspector
Respondent
RECONSIDERATION DECISION
Adjudicator: Harriet Lewis, Member
Heard by way of Written Submissions:
For the Appellant: Self represented
For the Respondent: none requested
OVERVIEW:
1The appellant, Brooke Rumm, requests a reconsideration of an appeal decision of the Animal Care Review Board (“the Decision” and the “Board” respectively), released on November 18, 2020. The appeal, filed on August 28, 2020, was in respect to the removal of eighteen adult dogs and nine puppies from the appellant’s trailer home on the grounds that the animals were in distress. At the time of the removal, the appellant had parked her vehicle and trailer at the Kawartha Court House, where she was appearing for her trial on criminal charges of cruelty to animals. The removal was conducted by an Animal Welfare Inspector after an inspection of the trailer containing the dogs and following a veterinarian’s certificate confirming the animals’ distress.
2The Decision followed a video conference hearing on August 14, 2020, at which the appellant was represented by counsel.
3On August 21, 2020 the appellant was again charged under The Criminal Code of Canada, with “cruelty to animals” and “willful neglect to provide suitable and adequate care for a dog” as a result of the circumstances and condition of the dogs at the time of their removal. She was taken into custody but released on bail with conditions, including that she not “own, have custody or control of or reside in the same residence as an animal or bird”.
4In her appeal, the appellant asked that the dogs be returned to her and questioned the Statement of Account for the costs incurred for medical treatment and boarding of the animals following their removal.
5After hearing all the evidence, I upheld the removal of the animals, and varied the Statement of Account. I declined to make an order for the release of the animals given the appellant’s outstanding bail conditions and absent any alternative plans for their care upon release should the bail conditions be lifted
6The appellant, acting on her own behalf, has now asked for reconsideration of the Decision. The grounds on which she bases her request for reconsideration are that the removal of her animals has caused both her and the animals great distress and that she has made renovations to her trailer to better accommodate her animals were they to be returned to her.
ANALYSIS:
7The grounds for allowing a reconsideration of a decision of this Board are set out in Rule 18 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal, Animal Care Review Board, and Fire Safety Commission Common Rules of Practice and Procedure, Version 1 (October 2,2017) (“the Rules”). I have been delegated responsibility to reconsider this matter under that section.
8Section 18.2 of the Rules requires that to grant reconsideration, one or more of the following criteria must be satisfied:
a. The Tribunal acted outside its jurisdiction or violated the rules of procedural fairness;
b. The Tribunal 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 Tribunal 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 Tribunal when rendering its decision, could have been obtained previously by the party now seeking to introduce it, and would likely have affected the result.
9There is an onus on the party requesting a reconsideration to establish one or more of these grounds:
Though the applicant may not agree with the Tribunal’s reasoning or finding, this is not a ground for granting a request for reconsideration. A request for reconsideration is not an opportunity to merely request another hearing or to reargue her 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.
10The appellant’s submission speaks of her close emotional bond with her dogs. She considers them to be her family and is concerned that they are suffering “severe shelter shock” since their removal from her care. She has made alterations to the configuration of her trailer which could properly accommodate her animals were they to be returned to her.
11However, the appellant’s submissions are not relevant to this application. She has made no submissions in support of the required grounds for considering a request for reconsideration. Therefore, the onus for a reconsideration of the Decision by this Board has not been met.
CONCLUSION:
12For the reasons set out above, the reconsideration request is dismissed.
Released: January 15, 2021
Harriet Lewis, Member