Tribunals Ontario
Animal Care Review Board
RECONSIDERATION DECISION
Before: Lindsay Lake, Vice-Chair
Date: August 19, 2025
File: 16343/ACRB
Case Name: Windrift Adventures Inc., Adrienne (Spottiswood) Pryde, Thomas Pryde, Georgina Pierce, Clayton Cauchy, Renata Sauder, Jilian Pryde, and Cody Pryde v. Chief Animal Welfare Inspector 2025 ONACRB 171
Written Submissions by:
For the Appellants: Eric K. Gillespie, Counsel
For the Respondent: No submissions were requested
OVERVIEW
1On August 15, 2025, the appellants, Windrift Adventures Inc., Adrienne (Spottiswood) Pryde, Thomas Pryde, Georgina Pierce, Clayton Cauchy, Renata Sauder, Jilian Pryde, and Cody Pryde, filed a request for reconsideration of the Animal Care Review Board’s (Board’s) decision in Windrift Adventures Inc. et al. v. Chief Animal Welfare Inspector, 2025 ONACRB 167 (Decision).
2In the Decision, I confirmed the September 30, 2024 Statement of Account issued by the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector, the respondent, to the appellants in the amount of $1,431,180.00.
3The grounds for a request for reconsideration are found 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). To grant a request for reconsideration, the Board must be satisfied that one or more of the following criteria are met:
a) The Board acted outside its jurisdiction or violated the rules of procedural fairness;
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;
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, could not have been obtained previously by the party now seeking to introduce it, and would likely have affected the result.
4In this matter, the appellants submit that the Board acted outside of its jurisdiction, violated the rules of procedural fairness, and/or made an error of law such that the Board would likely have reached a different result had the error not been made.
5The appellants are requesting that the “Appeal should be allowed.”
RESULT
6The appellants’ request for reconsideration is dismissed.
ANALYSIS
7Rule 18.1 of the Rules requires that a party seeking a reconsideration of a decision include with their request, amongst other things, “all submissions in support of the request.”
8Here, the totality of the submissions provided with the appellants’ Request for Reconsideration form are as follows:
At the hearing, the Appellants raised the issue of the need to consider, comply, and comport with the purpose(s) of the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, 2019, to protect animals and to avoid placing them in distress. Windrift Adventures Inc. et. al. v. Chief Animal Welfare Inspector, 2025 ONACRB 167 (the “Decision”) makes no reference to these principles.
As a result, the Tribunal acted outside its jurisdiction and violated the rules of procedural fairness.
In addition, this resulted in an error of law such that the Tribunal likely would have reached a different result had the error not been made.
Consequently, the Appeal should be allowed.
The Appellants will be seeking judicial review of the Decision.
9The test for reconsideration under Rule 18.2 involves a high threshold: Flanders and Mogck v. Chief Animal Welfare Inspector, 2024 ONACRB 116 at para. 11. The reconsideration process is not an opportunity for a party to re-litigate its position if it disagrees with the Board’s decision. The requestor must show how or why the decision falls into one of the categories in Rule 18.2.
The Board did not act outside its jurisdiction
10I find that the appellants have not proven on a balance of probabilities that the Board acted outside its jurisdiction such that a reconsideration is warranted on this basis.
11The appellants argue that I acted outside of my jurisdiction and violated the rules of procedural fairness by not referencing the need to consider, comply, and comport with the purposes of the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, 2019, S.O. 2019. c. 13 (PAWS Act) in the Decision.
12The Board is a creature of statute and has no inherent jurisdiction. The Board’s powers are set out in s. 38(9) of the PAWS Act, which states:
After a hearing, the Board may do one or more of the following:
Confirm, revoke or modify an order made under section 30.
Order that an animal removed under subsection 31 (1) or (2), or that was taken into the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector’s care under subsection 31 (6) or 44 (8), be returned to the owner or custodian.
By order, revoke a statement of account.
3.1 Confirm or vary a statement of account and order that the costs be paid, as confirmed or varied, to the Minister of Finance.
Order that the whole or any part of the cost to the owner or custodian of an animal of complying with an order made under section 30 be paid by the Minister to the owner or custodian.
Order that the whole or any part of any costs described in subsection 35 (1) in relation to an animal, including but not limited to the costs set out in subsection 35 (2), be paid by the owner or custodian of the animal to the Minister of Finance.
13In the decision, I confirmed the September 30, 2024 Statement of Account in the amount of $1,431,180.00 and ordered that the amount be paid by the appellants to the Minister of Finance. This is an order made within my jurisdiction as it is expressly provided for in s. 38(9) of the PAWS Act.
14Further, the appellants’ reconsideration submissions are vague, sparse, and lacked particulars. The appellants did not provide any legislation or binding case law to support their position that failing to consider submissions made or a position advanced by a party would be considered exceeding the Board’s jurisdiction. It is also trite law that the Board is not required to address or reference every piece of evidence or argument that is put before it as the Board has discretion when receiving, weighing, and considering information.
The Board did not breach the rules of procedural fairness
15I find that the appellants have not proven on a balance of probabilities that the Board breached the rules of procedural fairness such that a reconsideration is warranted on this basis.
16The appellants did not provide any submissions and/or supporting case law with their reconsideration request regarding the scope of procedural fairness. In any event, procedural fairness generally encompasses the following:
a) Ensuring that parties understand the case they have to meet; and
b) Ensuring that the parties have an opportunity to be heard and to respond.
17On October 28, 2024, a case conference was held in this matter and a Case Conference Report and Order (CCRO) was released to the parties on October 29, 2024. The CCRO identified the sole issue in dispute as whether the September 30, 2024 Statement of Account in the amount of $1,431,180.00 should be confirmed, revoked, or varied.
18The grounds of the appeal were also set out in the CCRO as well as deadlines for motions concerning changes to the grounds of appeal raised by both parties. Following a written motion hearing, I released a Motion Order on November 22, 2024 which confirmed the grounds of appeal for the hearing were as follows:
a) The dogs have not been provided with proper necessaries and/or with adequate care;
b) The amounts charged on the September 30, 2024 Statement of Account were not appropriate; and
c) Financial hardship/ability to pay.
19At the hearing, both parties attended, called witnesses to testify, filed evidence, and made submissions on the issue in dispute and the grounds of appeal. In the Decision, I decided the sole issue in dispute after addressing the grounds of appeal. The appellants’ submission that I did not consider, comply, and comport with the purpose(s) of the PAWS Act does not give rise to any procedural fairness issues as the parties were aware of the case to meet and had an opportunity to be heard.
20Moreover, the appellants’ submissions are not clear on how I did not consider or comply with the purposes of the PAWS Act, or how the Decision was not aligned with the purposes of the PAWS Act. Making bald statements without further supporting submissions and/or evidence is not sufficient grounds to grant a reconsideration of the Decision.
The Board did not err in law
21I find that the appellants have not proven on a balance of probabilities that the Board erred in law such that a reconsideration is warranted on this basis.
22As stated above at paragraph 14, it is trite law that the Board is not required to address or reference every piece of evidence or argument that is put before it. The decision was based on evidence and submissions that I found persuasive, and it was open to me to arrive at the conclusions I did on the face of the evidence submitted and the arguments made.
23Further, the appellants’ submission that I erred in fact and/or law by not referencing the need to consider, comply, and comport with the purposes of the PAWS Act does not point to any errors. Instead, it shows a disagreement with my findings and/or analysis. While it is open for the appellants to disagree with the Decision, this is not a ground to grant a reconsideration request.
24Moreover, even if an error of law had been made in the Decision, which the appellants have not demonstrated, the appellants have made no submissions, as required by Rule 18.2(b), on how such error would have caused me to reach a different result had the error not been made.
CONCLUSION
25For all the reasons set out above, the appellants’ request for reconsideration is dismissed.
Lindsay Lake
Vice-Chair
Tribunals Ontario – Animal Care Review Board
Released: August 19, 2025