Brenda Sauer v. Chief Animal Welfare Officer, 2023 ONACRB 71

Tribunals Ontario

Animal Care Review Board

TRIBUNAUX DÉCISIONNELS ONTARIO Commission d’étude des soins aux animaux

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Before: Edgar-Andre Montigny, Adjudicator

Date of Decision: 12/19/2023

15056, 15086, and 15171/ACRB

Case Name: Sauer v. Chief Animal Welfare Officer

Written Submissions by: For the Appellant: Brenda Sauer For the Respondent: No submissions were requested

OVERVIEW

1On October 10, 2023, the Appellant, Brenda Sauer, filed a request for reconsideration requesting a reconsideration of the decision of the Animal Care Review Board (Board) issued October 10, 2023: Sauer v. Chief Animal Welfare Inspector 2023 ONACRB 57 (the Decision).

2The Decision confirmed two Statements of Account (SOAs) in the amounts of $15,482.85 and $1,731.25. The SOAs related to the costs of providing necessaries to a total of 27 dogs removed from the Appellant’s home on June 22, 2023, and on July 19, 2023, after having been found to be in distress.

3In the Decision, the Board also confirmed the decision of the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector (CAWI) to keep two puppies in its care that were born to dogs while they were in the care of the CAWI after having been removed from the Appellant’s home.

4The Appellant now seeks reconsideration of the Decision in accordance with Rule 18 of the License Appeal Tribunal, Animal Care Review Board, and Fire Safety Commission’s Common Rules of Practice and Procedure, Version (October 2017) as amended (Rules).

5The 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

6The Appellant’s request for reconsideration is dismissed.

ANALYSIS

7The 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 have likely affected the result.

8The Appellant seeks reconsideration on all four grounds, (a) to (d) as listed above.

9The 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.

10I find that the Appellant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that her request for reconsideration should be granted.

11The 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 Request for Reconsideration form; the Appellant must explain in what way one or more of the criteria in Rule 18.2 is met.

12For example, the Appellant states that the Board acted outside its jurisdiction or violated the rules of procedural fairness. However, the Appellant offers no examples of the Board acting outside its jurisdiction, nor does the Appellant describe how the Board violated the rules of procedural fairness.

13The Appellant claims that the Board made errors of law or fact such that the Board would have likely reached a different result had the error not been made. The Appellant offers no examples of errors of law or fact made by the Board.

14Further, the Appellant claims that the Board heard false evidence from a party or witness, which was discovered only after the hearing. The Appellant does not offer any indication of what the false evidence was, who presented it, or how it was discovered to be false after the hearing.

15Similarly, the Appellant submits that 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. The Appellant does not offer any new evidence for the Board to consider.

16In summary, the Appellant fails to provide any particulars to support her request for reconsideration of the Decision on any of the four grounds upon which she is seeking reconsideration. Without this information, it is not possible to conduct an analysis or reconsideration of the Decision on the grounds requested.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

17For the reasons noted above, the Appellant’s request for reconsideration is dismissed.

Edgar-Andre Montigny Adjudicator Tribunals Ontario