Tribunals ontario
Animal Care Review Board
TRIBUNAUX DÉCISIONNELS ONTARIO
Commission d’étude des soins aux animaux
RECONSIDERATION DECISION
Before: Ziba Heydarian, Vice Chair Peter Simmons, Member
Tribunal File Number(s): 15100/ACRB
Case Name: Hadioonzadeh v. Chief Animal Welfare Inspector
Written submissions by:
For the Appellant: Jamshid Hadioonzadeh
For the Respondent: No submissions were requested
OVERVIEW
1On October 25, 2023, the Appellant, Jamshid Hadioonzadeh, filed a request for reconsideration of the Animal Care Review Board’s (Board) decision of Hadioonzadeh v. Chief Animal Welfare Inspector (Decision).1
2In that Decision, the Board:
- Found that the dogs removed from the Appellant’s property on July 20, 2023, were in distress and;
- Dismissed the Appellant’s appeal of a Notice of Removal (NOR).
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).
4The Appellant did not specifically identify the remedy he is seeking under Rule 18.1(c). However, the Board reviewed his submission and understands he wishes to have the Decision varied to have his dogs returned to him.
5The Board did not seek submissions from the Respondent regarding its position on the reconsideration pursuant to Rule 18.3.
6We have been delegated responsibility to decide this matter in accordance with Rule 18.1.
RESULT
7The Appellant’s request for reconsideration is dismissed.
ANALYSIS
Reconsideration criteria
8The criteria for granting a request for reconsideration is set out in Rule 18.2 of the Rules. A request for 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; or
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; or
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.
9The Appellant submits that a reconsideration should be granted based on the following two criteria:
Rule 18.2 (b) – The Board made an error of law, or fact, such that it would likely have reached a different result had the error not been made; and
Rule 18.2 (c) – The Board heard false evidence false evidence from a party, or witness, which was discovered only after the hearing and likely affected the result.
10The Appellant has the burden of establishing the grounds for reconsideration.
11For the reasons that follow, the Board is not satisfied that the Appellant met the criteria under Rule 18.2 or that he proved that his request for reconsideration should be granted.
Application of Reconsideration criteria
12Rule 18.1 of the Rules states that a party may make a Request for Reconsideration within 21 days of the date of the decision, on the Board’s form, and must include:
All submissions in support of the Request, which must specify the applicable criteria under Rule 18.2;
Notification if the party is seeking judicial review or pursuing an appeal in relation to the decision; and
The remedy or relief sought.
13The Appellant’s submissions made no distinction made between the two criteria forming the basis of his request; namely 18.2 (b) and (c). He provided various reasons for objecting to the Decision in a blended manner without specific reference to the required criteria in Rule 18.2.
14The Appellant did not specify the remedy he is seeking other than he wishes his dogs returned to him. The Board reviewed the details of his arguments overall and set out the reasons for its decision below:
Rule 18.2 (b) – error in law or fact
15The Appellant submits the Board made an error in fact in paragraph 31 of the Decision when it found that the Appellant did not install a portable air conditioner on the third floor of his property.
16The Appellant argues that a portable air conditioner was installed by his helper. Then, when he came to show Inspector Britanny Eade (Inspector Eade) of AWS he had installed the air conditioner, the Appellant submits that Inspector Eade spoke to another AWS Inspector and then refused to relocate the 17 dogs to the room with the relocated air conditioner without any further explanation.
17This is contrary to the Appellant’s testimony at the hearing where he said that he told his helper to “stop” the air conditioner relocation because he did not believe he would be allowed to relocate the 17 dogs.
18The Appellant provided no persuasive evidence to support his argument that the installation of the air conditioner was, in fact, completed. His instructions to his helper to “stop” the installation naturally follows his decision not to proceed with the installation.
19The Appellant’s submission that an error in fact occurred is not supported by any persuasive evidence. Even if there were an error in fact, it would not have affected the Decision because installing an air conditioner was not a requirement of the Compliance Order (Order). Along with three other conditions, the Order required a ventilated space, which is not the same as an air conditioner. The non-compliance of the Order was used by the Respondent in conjunction with a veterinarian certificate2 to support the NOR. An air conditioner, operating or not, would not have affected the Board’s decision.
Rule 18.2(c) - false evidence heard from a party or witness.
20The Appellant submits that, “All 5 locations for the dogs had water, ventilation and lights.” He says that he provided food and water to his dogs every morning and evening including on the morning of July 20, 2023, when AWS inspected his property.
21In his submission he says that the water bowls were empty only after AWS left his property because they “were kicked” implying that false evidence was heard by the Board.
22The Appellant raised this argument at the hearing. He provided no persuasive evidence during his testimony that the water bowls were empty because of the actions of AWS. Through is own admission at the hearing he said did not see any water bowls being “kicked over” by AWS.
23The 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. He provided no persuasive evidence to support his argument that false evidence was heard, or even if had, that it would have affected the Decision.
24A reconsideration request is not an opportunity to retry or rehear a case. The Appellant’s submission is focused on matters that were heard at the hearing and addressed accordingly.
25In summary, 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
26For the reasons noted above, the Appellant’s Request for Reconsideration is dismissed.
Released: January 25, 2023
__________________________
Ziba Heydarian, Vice Chair
__________________________
Peter Simmons, Member
Footnotes
- Hadioonzadeh v. Chief Animal Welfare Inspector, 2023 ONACRB 59
- Certificate of a Veterinarian Advising the Removal or Euthanasia of an Animal (the “Certificate”)