Stephanie Redlick v. Chief Animal Welfare Inspector, 2025 ONACRB 196

Tribunals Ontario

Animal Care Review Board

TRIBUNAUX DÉCISIONNELS ONTARIO Commission d’étude des soins aux animaux

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Before: Tassia Poynter, Member

Date of Order: December 2, 2025

16843/ACRB

Case Name: Redlick v. Chief Animal Welfare Inspector, 2025 ONACRB 196

For the Appellant: Mikesh Patel, Counsel

For the Respondent: Danielle Meuleman, Counsel

OVERVIEW

1On August 15, 2025, the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector (the Respondent) filed a request for reconsideration of the motion decision of the Animal Care Review Board (Board) in Redlick v. Chief Animal Welfare Inspector, 2025 ONACRB 168 (Motion Decision).

2In the Motion Decision, I granted the Respondent’s motion and dismissed the following appeal and applications brought by Stephanie Redlick (the Appellant):

a. An appeal of a Statement of Account (SOA) under section 38(1) of the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, 2019, S.O. 2019, c. 13 (PAWS Act);

b. An application for revocation of order under section 38(3) of the PAWS Act; and

c. An application for return of animals under section 38(4) of the PAWS Act.

3The grounds for a request for reconsideration are outlined 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; and/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 its request for reconsideration, the Respondent submits that I made an error of law in the Motion Decision. Specifically, the Respondent submits that I erred in interpreting the PAWS Act in a manner that permits an appellant to amend a notice of appeal in writing to the Board pursuant to section 38(1) of the PAWS Act after the prescribed period to file the notice has expired.

5In addition, the Respondent submits that the Board should consider its request for reconsideration because my legal interpretation of section 38 of the PAWS Act was never put to the Respondent during the motion. In other words, there was no opportunity for the Respondent to provide responding submissions as the Appellant put forward no substantive submissions on this legal issue.

6The Appellant was invited to make submissions on the Respondent’s request for reconsideration by September 29, 2025, but did not do so.

7The Respondent was also invited to make reply submissions by October 6, 2025, but did not do so because the Appellant made no submissions.

RESULT

8The Respondent's request for reconsideration is dismissed.

ANALYSIS

9The test for reconsideration under Rule 18.2 of the Rules involves a high threshold (see: Flanders and Mogck v. Chief Animal Welfare Inspector, 2024 ONACRB 116 at para. 11).

10The 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 of the Rules.

A. The Respondent’s request for reconsideration on the basis of an error of law is dismissed

11The Respondent submits that I erred in law in the Motion Decision and incorrectly interpreted section 38 of the PAWS Act because:

a. I did not read sections 38(2) and 38(5) of the PAWS Act together;

b. I used the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, R.S.O. 1990, c S. 22 (SPPA) to import jurisdiction where the PAWS Act does not provide it;

c. The Motion Decision produces an “absurd result”; and

d. I did not consider the PAWS Act’s requirement for an expedited process.

12The Respondent, however, does not argue that I would have likely reached a different result on the Motion Decision had I accepted the Respondent’s interpretation of section 38 of the PAWS Act.

13One of the requirements to grant a request for reconsideration under Rule 18.1 of the Rules is that had the error not been made, the Board would likely have reached a different result. Indeed, the Respondent acknowledges that its request for reconsideration in this case is technically moot given it will not impact the ultimate result but asks the Board to issue a decision on its request for reconsideration because this matter “raises an important legal issue of general importance to the processing of all section 38(1) appeals by the Board”.

14Because the Respondent does not argue nor provide evidence to support that I would likely have reached a different result had the purported error of law not been made, the Respondent’s request for reconsideration under Rule 18.2(b) of the Rules is dismissed.

15Further, given the Respondent’s submission that its request “raises an important legal issue”, I carefully considered whether to address the Respondent’s arguments regarding error of law even though its request for reconsideration does not meet the criteria of Rule 18.2(b) of the Rules. In my view, it would be inappropriate for me to do so for the following reasons:

a. The Respondent’s submissions describe a disagreement with my statutory interpretation and analysis of section 38 of the PAWS Act and the PAWS Act’s regulations. While the Respondent may disagree with the Motion Decision, disagreement alone does not constitute an error of law, nor is it a ground to grant a request for reconsideration; and

b. Many of the Respondent’s arguments are hypothetical in nature and presume the correctness of their own interpretation of how the Board will interpret section 38 of the PAWS Act in the future. In my view, a request for reconsideration is not the correct forum for the Board to attempt to address such arguments.

B. The Board did not violate the rules of procedural fairness

16In its submissions, the Respondent states that its request for reconsideration is also warranted in this matter because the Board’s interpretation of section 38 of the PAWS Act was not put to the Respondent during the motion. In other words, the Respondent submits that it had no opportunity to provide responding submissions as the Appellant put forward no substantive submissions on this legal issue.

17The Respondent, however, did not provide any further submissions and/or supporting case law with their request for reconsideration regarding the scope of procedural fairness. Instead, the Respondent focused the entirety of their submissions on the alleged error of law.

18In any event, procedural fairness generally encompasses the following:

a. Ensuring that the parties understand the case they have to meet; and

b. Ensuring that the parties have an opportunity to be heard and to respond (see: Windrift Adventures Inc. et al. v. Chief Animal Welfare Inspector, 2025 ONACRB 171 at para. 16).

19I find that the Respondent has not proven on a balance of probabilities that I breached the rules of procedural fairness in the Motion Decision for the following reasons:

a. The Respondent brought the motion underlying the Motion Decision and therefore was responsible for setting out the issues on the motion. In this case, one of the issues was the statutory interpretation of sections 38(2) and 38(5) of the PAWS Act as it related to the Respondent’s motion to dismiss the Appellant’s SOA appeal;

b. Both parties were provided with several opportunities to make written and oral submissions on the Respondent’s motion;

c. When the Respondent made oral submissions on their motion, I asked several questions about its position on the statutory interpretation of section 38 of the PAWS Act which provided the Respondent with several opportunities to advance and clarify its position;

d. As outlined by the Respondent in its submissions, the Appellant made no submissions regarding the substance of the Respondent’s motion and therefore I ruled on the arguments advanced by the Respondent on its motion. A request for reconsideration is not an opportunity for a party to correct any potential shortcomings in their submissions, nor is it an opportunity to supplement those submissions. Parties are required to put their best foot forward when first called upon to do so; and

e. The Respondent’s submissions do not specify how I violated the rules of procedural fairness in the Motion Decision. Making bald statements without further supporting submissions and/or evidence is insufficient to grant a request for reconsideration.

20Accordingly, I find that the Respondent’s request for reconsideration also does not meet the criteria of Rule 18.2(a) of the Rules.

CONCLUSION

21For the reasons set out above, the Respondent’s request for reconsideration is dismissed.

Tassia Poynter, Member