File Nos. 15132/15145/15181
RECONSIDERATION DECISION
Before: Peter Simmons, Member
Case Name: Lynn Freeman v. Chief Animal Welfare Inspector
Written Submissions by:
For the Appellant: Lynn Freeman, self-represented
For the Respondent: Jason Kirsh, Counsel
OVERVIEW
1On January 11, 2024, the Appellant, Lynn Freeman, filed a request for reconsideration of a decision of the Animal Care Review Board (Board) issued on December 22, 2023: Freeman v. Chief Animal Welfare Inspector, 2023 ONACRB 65 (Decision).
2In the Decision, I:
Found 4 cats removed from the Appellant’s home on August 2, 2023, to be in distress at the time of their removal;
Found it was necessary for Animal Welfare Services (AWS) to remove the 4 cats in distress from the Appellant’s home on August 2, 2023, to relieve their distress;
Dismissed the Appellant’s appeal of a Keep in Care decision affecting the 4 removed cats, and;
Confirmed a Statement of Account (SOA) in the amount of $17,172.50.
3The Appellant now seeks a reconsideration of the Board’s Decision in accordance with Rule 18 (Reconsideration of a Tribunal Decision) 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 specify the remedy, or relief, sought in her reconsideration request form dated January 11, 2024; however, in emails from her dated January 16, 2024, where she says ‘Return the animals’ and January 30, 2034, where she says, ‘There is no reason to keep my babies’ and February 2, 2024, where she states that ‘there is no reason those animals can’t be returned’, I infer that she seeks to only have part of the Decision, that being the dismissal of her appeal of the Keep in Care decision, cancelled or reversed.1
5The emails of January 16 and 30, 2024, and February 2, 2024, were not invited by the Board, and they provided no additional details or expansions to her primary submission that would influence the original findings and Decision, and they have been given little weight in this reconsideration request.
6I have been delegated responsibility to decide this matter in accordance with Rule 18.1.
RESULT
7The Appellant’s request for reconsideration is denied.
ANALYSIS
8The criteria for granting a reconsideration are set out in Rule 18.2 of the Rules. The grounds that the appellant submitted apply in this matter are Rules 18.2(a)-(d) which permit a reconsideration if:
The Board acted outside its jurisdiction or violated the rules of procedural fairness;
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;
The Board heard false evidence from a party or witness, which was discovered only after the hearing and likely affected the result, or;
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.
9The Appellant has the burden to establish that one or more of these criteria are met.
10For the reasons that follow, I find that the Appellant has not established any of the above grounds and I, therefore, dismiss the reconsideration request.
Acting outside of jurisdiction, and violating the rules of procedural fairness
11The Appellant did not specify how I acted outside the jurisdiction of the Board or how I violated the rules of procedural fairness. She provided no details or persuasive evidence in her request for consideration form or her emails of January 16, 2024, or January 30, 2024, or February 2, 2024, that can be interpreted or recognized as violations of jurisdiction or procedural fairness. The Appellant’s submissions are unsupported.
12I therefore find that I did not act outside the jurisdiction of the Board, and did not violate the rules of procedural fairness, and reconsideration of the Decision under Rule 18.2(a) is not warranted.
Errors of law or fact
13The Appellant submits that I made errors of fact in the Decision by:
not acknowledging her contraction of COVID when considering her adjournment request of September 19, 2023,
misstating that a Constitutional question had not been raised previously.
14The Appellant’s submission includes an undated image of COVID test result. It is absent details as to how it, the COVID test, relates to her any of her adjournment requests or how it would have affected the Decision. A COVID test result was not provided as evidence in support of any of the Appellant’s adjournment requests.
15The Appellant’s submission revolves principally around her adjournment requests being denied. In paragraph [11] of the Decision, I explained why I denied the Appellant’s adjournment request of September 19, 2023, and how the parties consented to using that date to join files and discuss, and set, new hearing dates seven weeks later. At the hearing of October 23, 2023, the Appellant submitted a new adjournment request, which I denied because she had not provided prior notice to the Board nor complied with the Rules concerning adjournment requests. What is more, the second request was not on consent of the Respondent. I informed the Appellant that she was free to submit a new adjournment request at the next opportunity, which she did on October 31, 2023. Her subsequent adjournment request was made for the same reasons as her previous requests, did not comply with the Rules, and contained no new information to persuade me to grant it.2 As a result, it was subsequently denied.
16The granting of adjournments is neither automatic nor guaranteed, and it is the Board who decides whether an adjournment request will be granted. Denying adjournments is not a valid ground to argue a lack of procedural fairness when, in this case, the Appellant had the opportunity to make fulsome submissions and was provided reasons for the adjournment denial. As addressed in paragraph 11.4 of the Decision, the note provided by the Appellant did not contain sufficient information to enable the me to exercise my own judgment as to whether the adjournment should be granted. Even if an adjournment were granted it would not have affected the Decision.
17The Appellant also submits that her Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Charter)3 argument was not properly addressed and that it had been raised at previous hearings.
18The notice provisions for Charter matters are clear and were explained to the Appellant at the hearing. The requirements for Constitutional questions are contained within the Board’s Rules which were also outlined to the Appellant.
19The Appellant’s Charter claim was discussed at the hearing and the outcome was address in paragraph 11.7 of the Decision. I found that the Appellant had not, through her own admission, properly served notice to the Attorney Generals of Canada and Ontario in accordance the Rules nor did she provide persuasive testimony that her Charter issue would have a bearing on the matter before the Board. Moreover, the Appellant provided no evidence of past submissions of Charter questions.
20The Appellant also submits there is an error of law; however, she does not link her submission to an error in law in the Decision, or how I erred in applying or interpreting the law when rendering the Decision. I infer from her submission, which includes excerpts from the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, 2019, S.O. 2019, c.13 (PAWS Act, 2019) that speak to complaints about Inspector conduct, that she believes the conduct of AWS Inspectors during inspections was improper and not in accordance with the PAWS Act, 2019.
21Complaints concerning AWS Inspector conduct are not within the jurisdiction of the Board. This was communicated to the Appellant at the hearing, and I did not hear the complaint.
22I therefore find that I did not make an error of fact or law, and a reconsideration of the Decision under Rule 18.2(b) is not warranted.
False evidence heard from a party, or witness discovered after the hearing
23The Appellant submitted that AWS Inspector Rachel Falls (Inspector Falls), gave a false statement at the hearing. The Appellant did not provide clear or specific reference or detail of Inspector Falls’ testimony that she alleged was false other than to suggest it was related to the issuance of the warrant at the time of inspection.4
24The Appellant’s submission is an attempt to reargue her case. The details surrounding the issuance and service of the warrant was discussed at the hearing. The Appellant provided no additional supporting detail in her reconsideration submission regarding any false evidence heard by the Board or that it would have affected the outcome.
25I therefore find there was no false evidence heard by me, or that any was discovered after the hearing that would have affected the Decision. A reconsideration of the Decision under Rule18.2(c) is not warranted.
Evidence that was not before me when the Decision was rendered that could not have been obtained previously and would have affected the result.
26The Appellant submits that revocations issued by AWS on December 12, 2023, concerning two previously issued Compliance Orders from March 21, 2023, and May 10, 2023, were not before me when the Decision was rendered and that either, or both, would have affected the Decision.
27The Appellant is correct when she says she was not able to obtain the evidence prior to the hearing because they were provided to her on December 12, 2023, approximately seven weeks after the hearing. The Compliance Orders were still valid and ‘live’ at the time of the hearing.
28I infer from the Appellant’s submissions that she views the revocations as evidence of compliance of two Compliance Orders that underpinned the removals of four cats on August 2, 2023.
29The Appellant was not able to obtain these revocations because they had not been issued at, or around, the time of the hearing because she was not in compliance at that time. She received the revocations of the Compliance Orders from March 21, 2023, and May 10, 2023, once compliance was achieved on December 12, 2023.
30The Appellant made no attempt to advise the Board that she had complied with the Orders as of December 12, 2023, approximately 10 days before the release of the Decision. Even if she had the advised the Board of her compliance and argued it was evidence not previously available, it would not have affected the Decision. Non-compliance of the Compliance Orders was only part of AWS’ rationale to remove, and keep, the Appellant’s four cats. In the Decision, I stated I had no evidence of her compliance to these Compliance Orders, nor was I persuaded that she was committed to ongoing medical treatment and veterinary care for her cats because she missed a veterinary related compliance date, and incorrectly identified her own cat to be taken for that appointment.5
31I therefore find there was no evidence that was not before the Board that could not have been obtained previously that would have affected the Decision. As such, the Appellant’s request for a reconsideration under Rule 18. 2(d) is not warranted.
Appellant’s other arguments
32The Appellant also submits that artificial intelligence (AI) was improperly used by the Respondent. Specifically, she argues that investigation reports that are submitted as relevant supports to Keep in Care decisions were AI generated.
33The Respondent explained at the hearing that Keep in Care decisions are made from compiled sources, and part of the report used to support the decision is automatically populated from information from other reports. The Keep in Care decision is subsequently reviewed and signed off by a Regional Supervisor before issuance.
34The Appellant provided no persuasive argument or details as to how her submission regarding AI is relevant to the reconsideration, and/or how it affects any of the reconsideration criteria or that affected the Decision.
CONCLUSION
35The Appellant’s request for reconsideration is dismissed.
Released: April 29, 2024
Peter Simmons, Member
Footnotes
- The Appellant says in her email of January 30, 3024, that she received a USB package on January 30, 2024, and believed it to be from the Respondent. The Respondent confirmed with the Board on January 31, 2024, that the USB package was not related to this matter.
- The medical note supplied by the Appellant at each adjournment request was the same note only with a different date.
- Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, s 7, Part 1 of the Constitution Act, 1982, being Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (UK), 1982, c 11.
- AWS compliance inspection of the Appellant’s home on August 2, 2023
- Freeman v. Chief Animal Welfare Inspector (CAWI), 2023 ONACRB 65, Para 57.