Tribunals Ontario

Animal Care Review Board

TRIBUNAUX DÉCISIONNELS ONTARIO Commission d’étude des soins aux animaux

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Before: Susan Clarke, Vice Chair

Date of Order: 12/22/2023

15357 & 15358/ACRB

Case Name: Johnathon Lawson v. Chief Animal Welfare Inspector

Written Submissions by:

For the Appellant: Johnathon Lawson, Appellant

OVERVIEW

1Johnathon Lawson, the Appellant, filed a request for reconsideration (Request) of a decision of the Animal Care Review Board (Board), dated November 30, 2023, in Lawson v. Chief Animal Welfare Inspector, 2023 ONACRB 61.

2In its decision, the Board concluded as follows:

a) The conditions that caused the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector to make the Decision to Keep in Care have not ceased to exist, and that returning the dog Chester to the appellant may place him in distress; and

b) The Statement of Account is confirmed in the amount of $2,413.78.

3In his Request submissions, the Appellant seeks an order to return his dog and argues that he was told at the hearing that he could re-apply for his dog to be returned to him. He also submits that the Statement of Account could be higher than what was ordered.

RESULT

4The Appellant's request for reconsideration is dismissed.

ANALYSIS

5Rule 18.1 of the Board’s Common Rules of Practice and Procedure (Rules) states that a party may make a Request within 21 days of the date of the decision, on the Board’s form, and must include:

a) All submissions in support of the Request, which must specify the applicable criteria under Rule 18.2;

b) Notification if the party is seeking judicial review or pursuing an appeal in relation to the decision; and

c) The remedy or relief sought.

6The grounds for granting a reconsideration are contained in Rule 18.2 of the Rules. Reconsideration will not be granted unless one or more of the following criteria are met:

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; and/or

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

7The ground that the Appellant argues applies to this case is not within the scope of Rule 18.2. Therefore, the Request does not meet the necessary criteria for granting a reconsideration.

8On December 21, 2023, I called a meeting with the parties seeking clarity on whether the Appellant was filing:

a) A Request for Reconsideration; or

b) An Application for Revocation of Determination¹.

9In that meeting, I reviewed the grounds for a Request with the Appellant. The Appellant confirmed that he was not appealing my decision, but was making an application for his dog to be returned to him.

10In that meeting, I also asked the Appellant to explain if he is making a Request regarding the confirmed Statement of Account. I am satisfied from our discussion that he is not.

11On the basis of the information provided in that meeting, I have concluded that the Appellant mistakenly used the Request form rather than an Application for Revocation of Determination for the return of his dog, Chester. I have also concluded that the Appellant is not making a Request regarding the Statement of Account.

CONCLUSION

12For the reasons noted above, the Appellant’s Request is dismissed.

Footnotes

1. 1Pursuant to s. 38(4) of the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, 2019, S.O. 2019, Ch. 13. The Application for Revocation of Determination may be made to the Board by an owner or custodian of an animal that has been taken into the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector’s care, to have the animal returned if the conditions that caused the animal to be kept in the CAWI’s care have ceased to exist.