Brenda Sauer v. Chief Animal Welfare Inspector, 2023 ONACRB 60

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Before: Susan Clarke, Vice-Chair

Date of Order: October 30, 2023 Tribunal File Numbers: 15055/ACRB

Case Name: Brenda Sauer v. Chief Animal Welfare Inspector

Written Submissions by:

For the Appellant: Brenda Sauer

For the Respondent: No submissions were requested.

OVERVIEW

1On September 11, 2023, the appellant, Brenda Sauer, filed an unsigned and undated request for reconsideration form requesting a reconsideration of the decision of the Animal Care Review Board (Board) issued on September 7, 2023: Sauer v. Chief Animal Welfare Inspector, 2023 ONACRB 15055 (the "Motion to Dismiss" decision). The request was filed on the Board and copied on the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector.

2On August 29, 2023, the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector ("CAWI"), the respondent, filed a Motion to Dismiss the appellant's appeal of its Decision to Keep the appellant's animals in its care (Board file no. 15055/ACRB). The grounds of the respondent's motion were that a related Statement of Account (SOA #3) had not been appealed and had not been paid. Therefore, the respondent's position was that animals had been forfeited pursuant to s. 35(4) of the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, 2019, S.O. 2019, c. 13 (the Act), and the relief sought in the appeal could not be obtained by the appellant (i.e., the return of her twenty-three dogs and one cat).

3During a case conference held by the Board on August 24 and 25, 2023, and documented in the case conference report and order¹, the respondent advised the Board and the appellant that it would file the Motion to Dismiss on August 29, 2023. At that time, the appellant agreed to respond to the Motion to Dismiss by September 1, 2023. The appellant, however, did not make any submissions on the Motion to Dismiss.

4On September 7, 2023, the Board granted the respondent's Motion to Dismiss the appellant's appeal of the Keep in Care Decision.² As a result, this appeal would not be moving forward as scheduled on September 14 and 15, 2023. However, the hearing would proceed for the other related files that were scheduled to be heard together with this matter.

5SOA #3 was served on the appellant on July 26, 2023. She did not appeal it to the Board. Payment was therefore due ten business days later pursuant to s. 1(1) of Ontario Regulation 447/19³, or on August 11, 2023. The appellant has made no payments to date. Therefore, by operation of s. 35(4)(a) of the Act, the animals that were removed were forfeited to the Crown.

6Forfeiture occurs by statute and is not subject to any further action by the Crown or the CAWI. Once animals are forfeited to the Crown, they become the property of the Crown and the previous owner/custodian ceases to have any rights of ownership or possession over the animals⁴.

7Because the animals were forfeited to the Crown, they are no longer her property. In my decision regarding the Motion to Dismiss, I stated in paragraph [14] that the dispute over the Keep in Care decision of the CAWI disappeared when the animals were forfeited, and that the Board has no power to return the animals.

8The appellant now seeks reconsideration of the Board's Motion to Dismiss decision in accordance with Rule 18 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal, Animal Care Review Board, and Fire Safety Commission's Common Rules of Practice and Procedure, Version I (October 2, 2017) as amended (Rules).

9The Board did not seek submissions from the respondent regarding its position on the reconsideration pursuant to Rules 18.3 and 18.4(a) of the Rules.

RESULT

10The appellant's request for reconsideration is dismissed.

ANALYSIS

11The grounds upon which a request for reconsideration can be granted are set out in Rule 18.2 of the Rules as follows:

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, that could not have been obtained previously by the party now seeking to introduce it and would likely have affected the result.

12The grounds that the appellant submits apply in this matter are Rules 18.2(a), (b), and (d).

a) Acted outside my jurisdiction or violated the rules of procedural fairness;

b) I made an error of law or fact such that I would likely have reached a different result had the error not been made; and/or

d) There is evidence that was not before me when I rendered the Motion to Dismiss decision, could not have been obtained previously by the party now seeking to introduce it, and would likely have affected the result.

13The onus to establish that the grounds for reconsideration have been met rests with the appellant as she is the party requesting the reconsideration in this matter.

14I find that the appellant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that her request for reconsideration should be granted in this matter.

15The appellant indicated that she wished a reconsideration of the Motion to Dismiss decision with the outcome of having her animals back. As the Motion to Dismiss decision related to the dismissal of an appeal, the appellant should have requested in her reconsideration submissions an opportunity to have her appeal heard, but she did not. I also note that the Request for Reconsideration form was not dated, not signed, and did not notify the Board if the appellant was seeking a judicial review or pursing an appeal in relation to the Motion to Dismiss decision as required by Rule 18.1(b).

16In any event, the appellant submitted a separate document with her Request for Reconsideration, titled "These are the things that I feel should be addressed for reconsideration." The contents of this document primarily included comments on other appeals and the only information related to the Motion to Dismiss decision is summarized as follows:

1. The appellant didn't know about an appeal she needed to submit [referring to SOA #3];

2. The appellant, "put in an appeal for the possibility that the Crown was going to try and have it thrown out and when we spoke at the case conference on August 24, 2023"; and

3. Information regarding advising Inspector Bease that she would be unavailable the week of August 27, 2023 to receive documents [SOA #3] because she had surgery on that date and would be on pain medication.

17The appellant did not indicate how any of the stated grounds related to the criteria to grant a reconsideration as set out in Rule 18.2. It is not enough simply to check the boxes on the form; the appellant must explain in what way one or more of the criteria is met.

18Further, the appellant provided no evidence to support her claims, except a copy of an email from pediatrician Dr. DiGravio reminding her of an office appointment for June 15, 2023. I fail to see how this relates to her request for reconsideration.

19Therefore, I find that the appellant has not proven on a balance of probabilities that a reconsideration should be granted in this matter based on the criteria set out in Rule 18.2.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

20For the reasons noted above, the appellant's request for reconsideration is dismissed.

Footnotes

1. 1Case Conference Report and Order, released to the parties on August 31, 2023
2. 2Served on the appellant on August 29, 2023, for 23 dogs and one cat.
3. 3Title: Ministerial Prescriptions; made under the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, 2019. Section 38(2) states that appeals for Statements of Account must be filed with the Animal Care Review Board within the "prescribed period after being served the statement". This information is also on the Statement of Account form.
4. 4Guillaume v. Chief Animal Welfare Inspector, 2023 ONSC 5782 at para 9.