Tribunals ontario
Animal Care Review Board
TRIBUNAUX DÉCISIONNELS ONTARIO
Commission d’étude des soins aux animaux
RECONSIDERATION DECISION
Before:
Ziba Heydarian
Vice Chair
05/09/2025
ACRB 16552 and 16669
Case Name:
Aulenback v Chief Animal Welfare Inspector, 2025 ONACRB 147
For the Appellant
Ashley Aulenback, self-represented
1The Appellant filed a request for reconsideration in this matter on April 11, 2025, in respect of a decision dated April 10, 2025.
2This request for reconsideration arises from the Board’s decision to grant a motion filed by the Respondent Chief Animal Welfare Inspector to dismiss the Appellant’s appeal of a Notice of Removal (NOR) and her Application for Return (Application) on the basis that her animals were forfeited to the Crown and that there was therefore no remedy available in law to proceed to a hearing on those matters.
3The Appellant is requesting the Board’s order be set aside on the basis that 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 Appellant checked off three criteria on the Request for Reconsideration Form, the main one being that there was an error of law or fact, which is a criterion for granting reconsideration under Rule 18.2(b) of the Board’s Common Rules of Practice and Procedure (Rules).
4The Board’s power to reconsider a decision, as set out in Rule 18.1 of the Rules, is a discretionary one. It provides that the Board may reconsider any decision that finally disposes of an appeal (or application) if the request for reconsideration is made within 21 days of the date of the decision.
5In this case, although the Appellant’s request was filed within the 21-day deadline for filing a request for reconsideration, the request did not satisfy any of the criteria for granting reconsideration pursuant to Rule 18.2.
6The Appellant argues that “the adjudicator made an error of law or fact that significantly impacted the outcome of the case. From the beginning, Lola was wrongfully taken due to misconduct by the animal welfare inspector... had the Tribunal properly considered this evidence, the outcome would likely have been different. Additionally, the financial burden of the statement of account would not exist had the wrongful seizure not occurred. The Tribunal’s failure to acknowledge these key facts led to an unjust ruling”. Nothing in decision suggests a misapprehension of the evidence or that the Board failed to consider evidence.
7The Appellant does not provide any particulars as to how the adjudicator erred either in fact or law. The request for reconsideration is vague and does not meet the criteria in the Rules. While the Appellant asserts that the adjudicator erred in law and failed to consider “credible, reliable and uncontradicted evidence,” no supporting submissions are provided. The submissions all relate to the alleged wrongful removal of the Appellant’s dogs, but the basis of the Board’s decision was that no remedy was available in law after forfeiture of the dogs.
8While the Board did not specifically cite the circumstances surrounding the removal in its decision, it is trite law that not every piece of evidence considered or presented at a hearing must be cited in the Board’s reasons. Furthermore, as the Appellant is seeking a return of her animal, reconsideration would not change the ultimate outcome, as forfeiture is an irreversible statutory mechanism that occurs automatically following non-payment of (or a failure to appeal) a statement of account, which is what occurred in this case. Even if the Board were to grant reconsideration, reopening the appeal would not lead to a different result, as the Board has no jurisdiction to order animals to be returned following forfeiture.
9On this basis, the request for reconsideration is dismissed.
Ziba Heydarian
Vice Chair
Animal Care Review Board
Released: May 15, 2025