Appeal under s. 38 of the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, 2019, S.O. 2019, c. 13.
Between:
Joshua LaPointe
Appellant
and
Chief Animal Welfare Inspector
Respondent
RECONSIDERATION DECISION
Before: Susan Clarke, Managing Vice Chair
Date of Order January 31, 2025
Written Submissions by:
The Appellant: Joshua LaPointe, self-represented
The Respondent: Jason Tam, Counsel
OVERVIEW
1This Request for Reconsideration (Request) arises from a decision dated December 11, 2024, in which the Board Registrar rejected the Appellant’s appeal of a Statement of Account (SOA) related to his dog Lincoln. The appeal was rejected because it was filed beyond the legislative time period of 10 business days.
2The Appellant filed his Request on December 17, 2024, indicating that his reason for the Request was that there was “evidence not before the Tribunal when rendering its decision, could not have been obtained previously by the party not seeking to introduce it, and would likely have affected the result” (manually checking off a box under Reasons on the Request Form). The Request was dismissed in a decision released on December 19, 2024, because the Appellant did not provide any materials to support his reasons for the Request.
3The Appellant made further submissions on December 21, 2024, regarding the Appellants grounds for the rejected appeal, rather than supporting submissions for the Request. The Board rejected these as well, but provided the Appellant a deadline of January 2, 2025, to perfect his Request by providing supporting submissions within the 21-day period limitation described in 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).
4Pursuant to s. 17(2) of the Adjudicative Tribunals Accountability, Governance and Appointments Act, 2009, S.O. 2009, c. 33, Sched. 5, I have been delegated responsibility to decide this matter in accordance with the applicable rules of the Tribunal.
RESULT
5The Appellant’s request for reconsideration of the decision dated December 11, 2024 is dismissed.
ANALYSIS
6The grounds upon which a request for reconsideration can be granted are set out in Rule 18.2 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) which are:
a) The Tribunal acted outside its jurisdiction or violated the rules of procedural fairness.
b) The Tribunal made an error of law or fact such that the Tribunal would likely have reached a different result had the error not been made.
c) The Tribunal 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 Tribunal 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.
The Appellant’s position:
7The Appellant made numerous submissions, not all of which may be captured below because the Appellant is pursuing several appeals, and emails and documents have not always been identifiable1:
December 21, 2024, materials were submitted for the SOA appeal that had been rejected.
December 25, 2024, materials were filed, however they bore no resemblance to the Request but related to File 16602/ACRB. These materials were not considered by the Board.
December 25, 2024, a single document was filed that supported the Request.
January 2, 2025, an email providing additional grounds to support the Request.
8In his December 25, 2024 materials, the Appellant requested that the Board allow his appeal of the SOA regarding Lincoln, submitting that he suffers from mental illness and that the stress of losing his dogs has made it difficult for him to manage tasks and timelines. He also submitted that he has health issues which affect his ability to fully participate in the appeals process. Because of these health issues, the Appellant submits that he may have been confused or had a misunderstanding regarding the timelines for appealing the SOA. In his concluding statement he asks that the Board reconsider its decision not to process his appeal of the SOA due to these extraordinary factors.
9In his January 2, 2025 materials, the Apellant submitted that it was a matter of procedural fairness to accept late filings, stating that the courts accept them where good cause is shown and to do so will not prejudice the other party.
The Respondent’s position:
10The Respondent requested that the Board dismiss the Request, and expressed it’s position as follows:
The SOA was served on the Appellant on October 17, 2024, but he didn’t appeal it until November 28, 2024. The deadline for appealing it was October 31, 2024.
The Appellant is familiar with the appeals process, having filed two other appeals related to Lincoln between October 17 and 31, 2024, and three additional appeals between October 31 and November 28, 2024. In total he has filed nine appeals on related matters in a timely fashion.
The Board does not have discretion to accept late appeals, nor the discretion to extend time periods.
The Appellant is unable to appeal the matter as he is no longer the owner/custodian of the dog Lincoln2.
The Board has no jurisdiction to extend the appeal period (Rule 18.2(a))
11The Board agrees with the Respondent that it has no jurisdiction to extend the appeal period. Where there might have been discretion, for example, if the Appellant had not received the SOA, the Board might have reflected on its decision. However, the Respondent provided a Certificate of Service which proves that the Appellant was served the SOA on October 17, 2024. As his appeal wasn’t filed until November 26, 2024, his appeal is clearly outside of the 10-business day limit described in the PAWS Act and Regulation.
There is no breach of procedural fairness (Rule 18.2(a))
12The Appellant based his submission regarding his Request to preserve procedural fairness, on a court’s willingness to consider late filings. I do not accept this, as accepting late filings of evidence is different from accepting late appeals. Pursuant to s. 38(2) of the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, 2019 and s. 3 of Ontario Regulation 447/19 (PAWS Act and Regulation), all appeals of an order, a notice of decision, or a statement of account must be filed within 10 business days of service. As stated in paragraph [11], it would therefore be a breach of jurisdiction to accept a late appeal.
13Furthermore, as the Board has no discretion to extend the timeline for accepting late appeals, there is no breach of procedural fairness to correct.
There is no evidence now before the Board that would have affected the result of its decision (Rule 18.2(d))
14The Appellant’s submission regarding his health is information which was not before the Board at the time that it made its decision, however even had this information been submitted with his late appeal, it would not have affected the Board’s decision.
15While I am sympathetic to the Appellant’s health issues, I acknowledge that during the appeal period the Appellant filed nine other appeals and was clearly alive to the appeal requirements set in law.
16In summary, while the Appellant made submissions on several grounds described in Rule 18.2, they were not persuasive. The Appellant’s onus to support his Request has not been satisfied.
ORDER
17The Appellant’s request for reconsideration is dismissed.
Susan Clarke
Managing Vice Chair
Tribunals Ontario – Animal Care Review Board
Released: January 31, 2025
Footnotes
- Email subject line not identifying the file number, documents not identifying the file number, or labelled as 16513/ACRB but contents clearly not related to that appeal, or contents not labelled but relating to other appeals.
- Lincoln was forfeited to the Crown on October 31, 2024 for failing to pay the SOA related to his care. The Board heard a Motion to dismiss various appeals related to the dog Lincoln on the basis that he was forfeited, and issued its decision (LaPointe v Chief Animal Welfare Inspector, 2025 ONACRB 117) on January 3, 2025 including in its reasons, that the Appellant never properly appealed the SOA nor paid it within the legislated time period.