Adams v. Chief Animal Welfare Inspector, 2024 ONACRB 109

Tribunals Ontario

Animal Care Review Board

TRIBUNAUX DÉCISIONNELS ONTARIO

Commission d’étude des soins aux animaux

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Before: Ziba Heydarian, Vice Chair

Debra Backstein, Member

Date of Order November 28, 2024

Tribunal File Number(s): 15863, 15904, 15928/ACRB

Case Name: Adams v. Chief Animal Welfare Inspector

Written submissions by:

For the Appellant: Jennifer Adams, self-represented

For the Respondent: Joanna Chan, Counsel

OVERVIEW

1On September 16, 2024, the Appellant, Jennifer Adams, the owner of two large Great Danes named Abercrombie and Billy the Kid (the “Dogs”), filed a request for reconsideration of a decision of the Animal Care Review Board (Board) issued on August 27, 2024: Adams v. Chief Animal Welfare Inspector, 2024 ONACRB 96(Decision).

2In the Decision, the Board:

1. Found that the Dogs removed from the Appellant’s property on May 1, 2024, were in distress and it was necessary to remove them to alleviate their distress, thereby dismissing the appeal of the Notice of Removal (NOR);

2. Found that the conditions that caused the Dogs to be removed from the property had not ceased to exist and the Dogs should not be returned to the Appellant, thereby dismissing the appeal of the Decision to Keep (DTK);

3. Confirmed a Statement of Account (SOA) issued by the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector (CAWI) on May 22, 2024, in the amount of $6,424.05.

3The Appellant now seeks reconsideration of the 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). Specifically, the Appellant asserts that the Board:

1. Acted outside its jurisdiction or violated the rules of procedural fairness;

2. Made errors of law or fact;

3. Heard false evidence from a party or witness, which was discovered only after the hearing; and

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

4The Appellant did not specifically identify the remedy she is seeking under Rule 18.1(c) in her reconsideration request form dated September 16, 2024. However, the Board considered an email from the Appellant dated September 17, 2024, and understands that she wishes to have the Decision varied and her Dogs returned.

5The Appellant sent two additional emails on September 17, 2024, but they appear to be unrelated to the reconsideration request and provide no additional details or elaboration on the reasons for her request that would influence the original findings and Decision; thus they have been given little to no weight in this reconsideration request.

6The Board sought submissions from the Respondent regarding its position on the reconsideration pursuant to Rule 18.3.

7The Respondent’s position is that the request for reconsideration has no merit and while the Appellant selected every ground in her reconsideration request form, she failed to provide any submissions and satisfy any of the grounds for granting reconsideration.

8We have been delegated responsibility to decide this matter in accordance with Rule 18.1.

RESULT

9For the reasons that follow, the Appellant’s request for reconsideration is dismissed.

ANALYSIS

Reconsideration criteria

10The criteria for granting reconsideration is set out 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; or

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

11The Appellant has the burden of establishing that one or more of these criteria are met.

12For the reasons that follow, the Board finds that the Appellant failed to meet any of the criteria under Rule 18.2 for the Board to grant the reconsideration.

Application of reconsideration criteria

13Rule 18.1 of the Rules states that a party may request reconsideration within 21 days of the date of the decision, on the Board’s form, and must include:

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

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

3. The remedy or relief sought.

14The Appellant’s form and submissions made no distinction between the four criteria in Rule 18.2, which were all selected on the form and appeared to form the basis of her request. While many of the various emails the Appellant sent to the Board between September 17, 2024 and October 31, 2024, were not relevant to the reconsideration request, some contained reasons for why she objected to the Decision but did so in a blended manner, without tying specific arguments to specific criteria in Rule 18.2. Despite this, the Board reviewed the details of her arguments overall and set out the reasons for its decision below:

Rule 18.2 (a) – The Board did not act outside its jurisdiction or violate the rules of procedural fairness

15Pursuant to Rule 18.2(a), the Appellant argued that the Board acted outside its jurisdiction or it violated the rules of procedural fairness. However, the Appellant provided no details or persuasive evidence in her request for reconsideration form or in her emails of September 17, October 22, 23, 24, 26, 27, 30, or 31, 2024, that can be interpreted or recognized as the Board acting outside its jurisdiction or violating the rules of procedural fairness. The Appellant’s submissions are unsupported.

16We have no basis to find that the Board acted outside its jurisdiction or violated violate the rules of procedural fairness, and reconsideration of the Decision under Rule 18.2(a) is not warranted.

Rule 18.2 (b) – The Board made no error of law or fact

17The Appellant submits the Board made an error in fact in several emails dated October 26, 2024. The Appellant stated that Inspector Wintermute’s testimony that the black substance on the tiles in the area where the dogs were kept was feces was not true. Rather, she states that this substance was black paint and it was very difficult to get it off the tiles because it is exterior gloss paint for the front door. No additional photographs of the area in question were submitted to substantiate the Appellant’s assertion.

18During the hearing, the Appellant cross-examined Inspector Wintermute and the veterinarian who was present during the inspection about the presence of feces on the floor and whether they had the substance tested. The veterinarian stated that based on her observations, the substance was in fact feces. She testified about being fully covered in personal protective equipment for the inspection due to safety reasons, and she also said some rooms were so unclean that it was not safe for her to enter at all, meaning it was clearly unsafe for the dogs to enter as well. This is not a case about an isolated area of the property being unclean or having feces. The extensive photographic and testimonial evidence of the Respondent confirmed the entire property was extremely unclean and unsafe for the animals.

19Inspector Wintermute also testified that no area of the home appeared sanitary, there were active hazards including feces, broken glass, exposed nails and other construction material all throughout the house, including the front tiled area where the dogs were meant to be kept.

20The Appellant cross examined Inspector Wintermute and advanced the same argument at the hearing, stating that the substance the inspector claimed to be feces was black paint. The Board considered the Appellant’s evidence on this during the hearing and preferred the evidence of the expert and the inspector, which was consistent and corroborated by photographs showing that the property was in a state of disrepair and extremely unsanitary throughout.

21The Appellant provided no persuasive evidence to support her argument that the black substance was, in fact, paint and not feces.

22Even if the Board had erred in this finding of fact, it would not have affected the Board’s decision. The Respondent’s evidence proved that the entire property was unsafe and hazardous for the dogs and this was not limited to just the tiled section at the front of the house. In dismissing the appeal of the Notice of Removal, the Board considered both the Appellant’s non-compliance with the Order and the veterinarian’s certificate advising removal. The alleged error would not have affected the Board’s decision as the veterinarian clearly indicated that the animals needed to be removed due to the unsanitary conditions, physical hazards that pose a significant risk of injury, and lack of food and water.

Rule 18.2(c) – The Board did not hear any false evidence that was discovered after the hearing and likely affected the result

23The Appellant submitted in her emails that she never received disclosure from the Respondent and later stated in the same email that upon receiving a will say statement for Inspector Wintemute, she found out who the original complainant was and took issue with this.

24The Appellant’s argument is not entirely clear, but she states that Inspector Wintermute’s testimony contradicted her will say statement. The Appellant goes into more detail about her relationship with the complainant, but it is unclear how this is related to the NOR, DTK or SOA that were under appeal and were adjudicated by the Board in the Decision. At the end of her email, the Appellant requests more time to review the disclosure and relies on this as a basis for filing a reconsideration.

25The Board finds that disclosure was provided by the Respondent prior to the hearing as required, and this included the will say statement of Inspector Wintermute. Upon reviewing Inspector Wintermute’s will-say statement, there is nothing that specifically contradicts or conflicts with her oral testimony.

26At the hearing, the Appellant did question Inspector Wintermute about the identity of the complainant, but this was not disclosed and the Appellant appears to be speculating about the identity of this individual. Regardless, the identity of the complainant is not relevant to the NOR, DTK, or SOA, all of which we found to have been warranted in our Decision.

27The Board is not persuaded by the Appellant’s submission that false evidence was heard by the Board or that it was discovered after the hearing. She provided no persuasive evidence to support her argument that false evidence was heard, or even if it had, that it would have affected the ultimate Decision.

Rule 18.2 (d) – There was no evidence that was not before the Board when the Decision was rendered that could not have been obtained previously and that would have likely affected the result

28The Appellant submitted there was evidence that was not before the Board when the Decision was rendered that could not have been obtained previously, including important information from a freedom of information (“F.O.I”) request. The Appellant did not, however, include any new evidence with her reconsideration form, nor in her emails.

29As stated above in para [23], the Appellant submitted that she did not receive disclosure or a will say statement for Inspector Wintermute ahead of the hearing, but we found this was not the case. In one of her emails, the Appellant also submitted a photograph of herself and a few other individuals standing in a park with two police officers. The Appellant did not explain the relevance of this photograph to the reconsideration and did not explain how this would have impacted the Board’s decision.

30The Appellant also sent an invoice for pest extermination in the amount of $960.50, which was dated October 22, 2024, along with several articles attesting to the problems that Waterloo region was having with rodents. She stated that when the dogs were at the property, she did not have any rats, and rats are attracted to ammonia, but because of her age she “sometimes dribbles”. In her email of October 22, 2024, she stated: “Ammonia is perfect at deterring rats as it mimics the smell given off by the predators of rats like cats. To use ammonia as a repellent, add two cups of the chemical, two spoons of detergent and 6.5oz of water in a bowl and place it the pathway of the rats.”

31Lastly, the Appellant made further arguments that the Board did not find compelling, including speculation regarding the original complainant who first contacted AWS to check on the Dogs, statements that her front hall was secured and the dogs could not have escaped unless they were “motivated by a horrible fear” (thus suggesting the inspectors caused the dogs to escape past the front gate into the rest of the house), and lastly that the cage on the second floor was only used a few times and she was unable to disassemble it.

32The Board finds none of the above arguments by the Appellant to be convincing. These arguments were all made during the original hearing and there is nothing in them to constitute “evidence that could not have been obtained previously”. While the Appellant suggested in her email that she obtained new evidence by way of an F.O.I request, she did not provide any new information to support her reconsideration request.

33The Board is not persuaded that there was evidence that was not before the Board when the Decision was rendered that could not have been obtained previously. Furthermore, her statement that the Property is now infested with rats and she “dribbles” is in line with the Board’s findings that the home was extremely unsanitary, and removal was warranted to relieve the Dogs from distress. As stated in para [26] above, the identity of the complainant or the Appellant’s involvement and relation to the police officers she mentions in her numerous emails would not have affected the Board’s decision and these arguments are not relevant to earlier findings regarding the NOR, DTK or SOA.

34A reconsideration request is not an opportunity to rehear a case. The Appellant’s submission is focused on matters that were raised at the hearing and addressed accordingly.

35In summary, the Appellant has not proven on a balance of probabilities that a reconsideration should be granted based on the criteria set out in Rule 18.2.

CONCLUSION

36For the reasons noted above, the Appellant’s request for reconsideration is dismissed.