Tribunals Ontario

Animal Care Review Board

Date: 2022-06-21

Appeal under section 38 of the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, 2019, R.S.O. 2019, c. 13

Between:

Walter Ray Appellant

and

Chief Animal Welfare Inspector Respondent

MOTION DECISION

Facilitator: Susan Clarke, Member

Appearances:

For the Appellant: Walter and Gwenda Ray John Lund Robert Scriven, counsel Nicole Wozniak, co-counsel

For the Respondent: Adrien Iafrate, counsel Paula Milne, Chief Animal Welfare Inspector

Observing: Stephanie Zwicker Slavens, Associate Chair (A), Animal Care Review Board

Hearing by teleconference: June 13, 2022

OVERVIEW

1The Appellant, Walter Ray, has appealed 3 Statements of Account (“SOA”) issued by Animal Welfare Services (“AWS”) in relation to 101 cattle that were removed from his property on December 16, 2021.

2The Appellant has also appealed a Decision of the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector to Keep an Animal in the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector’s Care (“keep in care”) pursuant to section 31(6) of the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, 2019 (“PAWS”).

2A hearing was held before the Animal Care Review Board (the “Board”) on March 16, 17, 18 and 28, 2022. On March 17, 2022, the parties advised that they had resolved the keep in care issue and would submit the settlement terms for the Board’s endorsement as a consent order.

3The parties filed Minutes of Settlement (“Minutes”) with the Board on April 11, 2022. Item 9 of the Minutes noted that the parties agreed that these were to form part of an Order or Decision of the Board, and that the parties would be bound by the Minutes. A Consent Order was released to the parties on April 22, 2022.

4On May 18, 2022, the Appellant filed a Motion to amend the Consent Order. Specifically, the Appellant requested that Item 5 of the Minutes be amended to state that the proceeds of the sale of the cattle were to be held by Mr. DeNure of Hoards Station Livestock Exchange, instead of the Respondent. It submitted the following grounds in support of the request:

1. Animal Welfare Services has breached the Consent Order dated April 22, 2022; and
2. It is in the interest of justice and fairness to both the Appellant and the Respondent that the funds be held by D.H. Hickson Ltd. (also Hoards Station) until a decision is made by the Board on the remaining issues in dispute.

5On June 6, 2022 the Respondent filed its response to the Motion. It did not consent to the Motion, and submitted the following:

1. The Board does not have jurisdiction to amend the Consent Order without the parties’ consent or to adjudicate any alleged breach of the Consent Order;
2. The Appellant has breached Item 5 of the Consent Order by refusing to provide the proceeds to the Respondent; and
3. The Appellant’s proposed remedy would be inappropriate as the owner of Hoards Station is not bound by any decision of the Board and has no legal entitlement to hold the proceeds.

6A Motion Hearing was held on June 13, 2022 to hear submissions. During the hearing, the Appellant offered two additional remedies as an alternative to the proceeds being held by Mr. DeNure, namely:

1. Proceeds to be held in a bank account jointly by the Appellant and Respondent; or
2. Proceeds to be held by the Respondent with a signed undertaking, thus amending Item 7 of the Minutes.

7The Respondent did not accept any of the alternative remedies.

DECISION:

8The Appellant’s Motion is Dismissed.

REASONS:

9The Board is a creature of statute and I only have the powers conferred upon me under s. 38(9) the Act. None of these powers include the ability to vary a consent order without the agreement of both parties. As a result, the motion is dismissed as I have no jurisdiction to make a decision on the Appellant’s motion.