RECONSIDERATION ORDER
Before: Anxhela (Angela) Peco Vice Chair (Acting)
Date of Order: 06/21/2024
Case Name: Sagoo v Chief Animal Welfare Inspector
For the Applicant: Shaun Harvey
1The Applicant filed a request for reconsideration of an Order to Dismiss, which was dated May 14, 2024.
2The request for reconsideration arises from my decision to dismiss the Applicant’s appeal of a Statement of Account after the Applicant failed to:
a. attend a case conference on May 7, 2024; and
b. make submissions on the Board’s Notice of Intent to Dismiss the appeal by the deadline of 12:00 p.m. on May 13, 2024.
3The Applicant is requesting that the Order to Dismiss be set aside, and the appeal be reinstated.
Reconsideration request was filed late
4Pursuant to Rule 18.1 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal, Animal Care Review Board, and Fire Safety Commission Common Rules of Practice and Procedure, Version I (October 2, 2017) (Rules), requests for reconsideration will only be accepted if the request is made within 21 days of the date of the decision.
5Rule 2.7 defines “day” as “calendar day.” Rule 6.5 states that documents received by the Board after 5:00 p.m. will be deemed to have been received on the next day that is not a holiday.
6The Applicant submitted the reconsideration request on June 4, 2024, at 6:41 p.m. Based on Rule 6.5, it was deemed to have been received on the next calendar day of June 5, 2024, and was therefore filed outside of the 21-day timeframe for submission of reconsideration requests.
Request does not meet the criteria for granting reconsideration
7Even if I were to consider the late request for reconsideration, I find that the Applicant has not met the criteria for granting reconsideration pursuant to Rule 18.2.
8The Applicant submits that the Board acted outside its jurisdiction or violated the rules of procedural fairness when it issued the Order to Dismiss. She argues that the Board took an overly technical approach and did not consider the substance of submissions in response to the Notice of Intent to Dismiss, submitted after the deadline had passed but before the Board issued its Order to Dismiss.
9I do not find that the Board acted outside its jurisdiction. Following the Applicant’s non-attendance on May 7, 2024, the Board followed the process outlined in Rules 3.4 and 3.5 of the Rules by:
a. Giving the parties notice of the Board’s intention to dismiss the proceeding as abandoned;
b. Providing reasons for its intention to dismiss; and
c. Informing the parties of their right to make written submissions and providing them at least five days to make submissions on why the proceedings should or should not be considered abandoned.
10Having received no submissions by the deadline, the Board then issued its Order to Dismiss the appeal without a hearing pursuant to its powers in Rule 3.4(d).
11The Applicant made no attempt to seek an extension of the deadline for submissions to the Notice of Intent to Dismiss, nor did the Board receive any explanation from the Applicant for why submissions were filed late. The Applicant attempts to do that now, by way of this reconsideration request.
12In the request for reconsideration, the Applicant provides several explanations for why she filed late submissions, none of which persuaded me that there was good reason why submissions could not have been filed on time. Among them, she notes that her legal representative had other work commitments and she lists the representative’s court and tribunal appearances on other files. I find that these were neither unanticipated nor “significant work events,” as they are described in the reconsideration request, but were in fact routine obligations for a legal representative.
13The Applicant also relies on section 2 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, RSO 1990, c S. 22 to argue that the Board’s Rules should be interpreted liberally to “secure the just, most expeditious and cost-effective determination of every proceeding on its merits.”
14The interpretation of procedural rules requires a balancing of the rights of individual parties with the need to ensure the efficient, proportional, and timely resolution of matters before the tribunal, both as a matter of fairness to the opposing party in this case and in the interest of permitting the Board to function properly.
15The requirement that the Board interpret its rules liberally does not mean that the rules can be dispensed with altogether absent a compelling reason. It is in the Board’s discretion to waive compliance with rules or timelines and there is no compelling or persuasive reason to do so in this case, where the Applicant had representation, received notice, and was given an opportunity to respond, which was not availed of. In addition, if parties before this Board consistently fail to carry out their respective duties and abide by timelines without any consequence, the tribunal’s ability to provide timely access to justice will be impaired. Taking these considerations into account, as the Board did in issuing an Order to Dismiss pursuant to Rules 3.4 and 3.5, does not amount to depriving a party of procedural fairness.
16On these grounds, the request for reconsideration is dismissed.
Released: June 21, 2024
__________________
Anxhela (Angela) Peco Vice Chair (Acting) Tribunals Ontario