Appeal under s. 38 of the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, 2019, S.O. 2019, c. 13.
Between:
Evelyn MacGillivary
Applicant
and
Chief Animal Welfare Inspector
Respondent
RECONSIDERATION DECISION
Before: Susan Clarke, Vice-Chair
Written Submissions by:
The Applicant: Evelyn MacGillivary, Self-represented
The Respondent: Erin MacGillivray, Counsel
OVERVIEW
1The Applicant, Evelyn MacGillivary, filed a request for reconsideration (Request) with the Animal Care Review Board (the Board) on October 27, 2025. She resubmitted her Request on the Board Request Form on October 31, 2025. The initial form submitted was not the correct form, however it and her submissions supporting her Request were submitted to the Board and directly to the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector, (the Respondent’s), counsel.
2The Request arises from an Order dated October 14, 2025 (Evelyn MacGillivary and Daniel McDermott v. Chief Animal Welfare Inspector (Board File 17572/ACRB), (MacGillivary and McDermott). In MacGillivary and McDermott, the Board dismissed the Appellants’ (Evelyn MacGillivary and Daniel McDermott) appeal of a Statement of Account (SOA) dated July 21, 2025, without a hearing as the statutory requirements for bringing the appeal had not been met. The statutory deadline for bringing an appeal is set out in the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, 2019, S.O. 2019, ch. 13 (PAWS Act) and Ontario Regulation 447/19 Ministerial Prescriptions; s. 3 of Ontario Regulation 447/19 states that 10 business days after service is the prescribed period of time for making an appeal.
3The Order also denied the Appellants’ request to stay the matter pending a reconsideration (it was unclear what reconsideration was pending).
4Of note is that the October 14, 2025, Order references the Board’s September 4, 2025, Order and Notice of Intention to Dismiss the Appellants’ appeal of the SOA (NOID) because it was appealed on August 25, 2025, well after the prescribed period of 10 business days from the date on the SOA. The Order reflected submissions made by the Respondent in which it advised that in a related proceeding (MacGillivary v Chief Animal Welfare Inspector, 2025 ONACRB 182), (MacGillivary)), the adjudicator made an oral finding that the SOA was served by email on July 26, 2025, which was later than the date on the SOA. Despite the date of service being found to be later than the date written on the SOA, the Board dismissed the appeal of the SOA because it was filed after the prescribed appeal date of 10 business days after service.
5The Appellants’ appeal of the SOA was made pursuant to s.38 of the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, 2019, S.O. 2019, ch. 13 (PAWS Act).
6Pursuant to s. 17(2) of the Adjudicative Tribunals Accountability, Governance and Appointments Act, 2009, S.O. 2009, c. 33, S. 5, I have been delegated responsibility to decide this matter in accordance with the applicable rules of the Board.
RESULT
7The Request is dismissed.
ANALYSIS OF RECONSIDERATION REQUEST
8The 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). They are as follows:
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.
The Applicant’s Position
9The Applicant requested that the Request be joined with her request for reconsideration of MacGillivary. She indicated that to reconsider the cases jointly would be procedurally fair, but that she has also requested a reconsideration of MacGillivary separately. She made identical submissions in both Requests.
10The Applicant’s position in this Request is that the Board acted outside its jurisdiction or violated the rules of procedural fairness in making its October 14, 2025, Order. The Applicant also submitted that the Board made an error in law or facts that would have possibly changed the outcome of the Order. Much of her submissions appear to relate to her request for reconsideration of MacGillivary. There is little in the submissions that speaks directly to the Order that is the subject of the current Request (MacGillivary and McDermott).
11The Applicant’s reply submissions (to the Respondent’s submissions) were again identical to those submitted for the request for reconsideration of MacGillivary. In these submissions, the Applicant made it clear that her issue was with the service date of the SOA, which was different from the date the SOA was signed. She submitted “proper service is key to procedural fairness as all the dates by the judge in a horrific manner was changed only reflecting the mistakes from the respondent as no affidavit was updated or changed to reflect any other dates besides July 21/2025 (sic)”. She submitted that the SOA was served to her as a secure email, which she was unable to open, and that this is not proper service.
12The Applicant’s position is further established in the remedy requested in her reply submissions. While her requested remedy mostly relates to MacGillivary, she has asked for a new hearing of all the three cases, MacGillivary (which addressed two Board files 17374 & 17379/ACRB) and MacGillivary and McDermott (which addresses 17572/ACRB) to determine the validity of proper service.
The Respondent’s Position
13The Respondent opposed the Appellant’s Request. It submitted that the Board does not have discretion to accept a late appeal, or to extend the prescribed appeal periods.
14The Respondent also submitted that the Appellant did not provide any submissions in support of their Request, and further, that the list of allegations submitted for the reconsideration of 17374/ACRB does not refer to this Decision’s (17572/ACRB) grounds for reconsideration.
15The Respondent requests that the Board dismiss the Request.
The Appellant served the Respondent a copy of its submissions made on October 27, 2025
16As described above in paragraph [1], the Appellant served a copy of her October 27, 2025, Request and supporting submissions on the Respondent’s counsel directly. When the Appellant perfected the Request on the correct form, and submitted it on October 31, 2025, she did not resubmit her supporting submissions.
17In fairness to the Applicant, and to hear her position properly, I have considered her October 27, 2025, Request submissions, and her subsequent reply submissions, as it was clearly her intent that she was making submissions for both MacGillivary and for MacGillivary and MacDermott.
18Despite that the Board is willing to accept the submissions, it will only consider those which pertain directly to this Request, regarding the October 14, 2025, Order dismissing the appeal of the SOA.
The Board will not join the request for reconsideration of MacGillivary with the request for reconsideration of MacGillivary and McDermott
19The Board dismisses the Applicant’s request to join the request for reconsideration of MacGillivary and McDermott (the SOA appeal, the subject appeal) with MacGillivary (the Applications) for the reasons that follow.
20MacGillivary was based on an Application to Return an Animal (File 17374/ACRB, regarding 31 cats), and an Application to Revoke an Order (File 17379/ACRB). The Board granted the Respondent’s motion to dismiss both the Application to Return an Animal, and the Application to Revoke an Order. In the case of the Application for return of the animals, because they had been forfeited and therefore could not be returned. In the case of the Order, because the Respondent withdrew the Order during the hearing, and therefore there was nothing to revoke.
21The Applicant submits that conducting the requests for reconsideration of all three Board files together would ensure procedural fairness, but did not explain how.
22The Board dismisses the request to join the requests for reconsideration because the Applicant did not provide any submissions on how joining the requests for reconsideration would ensure procedural fairness. The Board will hear the request for reconsideration of 17374 and 17379/ACRB in regular course.
A reconsideration is not an opportunity to lodge a complaint about another party
23The Board will not consider the Applicant’s complaint that the Respondent failed to exercise procedural fairness in its actions, for the reasons that follow.
24Through much of her Request, the Applicant describes her complaints about the Respondent’s service of various instruments such as the SOA, and that documents served were encrypted and that she was unable to open them. The Applicant also describes how she believes the Respondent, through its actions, delayed the proceedings.
25The grounds for reconsideration are described in Rule 18 of the Rules, and do not include complaints against the Respondent or its agents. Complaints are addressed in Part III of the PAWS Act. For this reason the complaint will not be addressed here because the Board lacks jurisdiction to hear complaints against the Respondent.
A reconsideration is not an opportunity for a party to raise new grounds of appeal
26The Board finds the Applicant’s submissions constitute an attempt to raise a new ground of appeal for the reasons that follow.
27In her Request, the Applicant submitted that the Respondent’s July 21, 2025, affidavit of service (affidavit), where it stated that the SOA was deemed served on July 24, 2025, was in error. She submits that the Inspector’s affidavit should have been changed to reflect the July 26, 2025, service date (page 3 of the Request), and subsequently the appeal deadline.
28In her Request, the Applicant also submitted that the SOA sent to her by email was encrypted, and that she could not open the contents because of this.
29In MacGillivary and McDermott, the Order reflected the findings in MacGillivary, that service of the SOA was on July 26, 2025 (para [9]), based on the Respondent’s submissions to the NOID. While the Applicant filed Reply submissions to the NOID, it did not challenge the Respondent’s submissions regarding service date findings in MacGillivary, nor did she challenge that the Board permitted the Respondent to correct the dates in the affidavit under oath.
30A reconsideration is not an opportunity to raise new grounds of appeal. As the Applicant did not raise the amended service date, or her concern that a new affidavit should have been filed, either in her SOA appeal, or in her reply submissions, she cannot now raise these as new grounds of appeal.
31Furthermore, the Applicant failed to identify an error with the Board’s treatment in her submissions on this Request, but merely asserted the error.
The Board did not act outside of its jurisdiction when it dismissed the Appellant’s late appeal nor when it denied the request to pause/stay the Order pending a reconsideration
The Board did not act outside of its jurisdiction when it dismissed the Appellant’s late appeal
32The Board did not act outside of its jurisdiction when it dismissed the Appellant’s late appeal of the SOA.
33In her Request, the Applicant asserted, but did not identify an error with the Board’s finding that the statutory requirements for bringing the appeal had not been met (MacGillivary and McDermott, para [6]).
34In MacGillivary and McDermott, the Board accepted the findings in MacGillivray that service of the SOA was by email on July 26, 2025, and determined that the deadline for filing an appeal of the SOA was August 12, 2025 (para [9]).
35In MacGillivary and McDermott, the Board found that the statutory requirements of filing the appeal of the SOA had not been met as the Appellants had filed their appeal on August 25, 2025, more than 10 business days after the date of service of the SOA (para [10]).
36The Respondent made submissions supporting that the Board has no jurisdiction to accept a late appeal, or to extend the prescribed appeal periods.
37In summary, the Applicant did not meet her onus to identify an error with the Board’s finding that the appeal was filed after the statutory requirements for bring an appeal of the SOA.
The Board makes no finding regarding the Applicant’s request to pause/stay the Order pending a reconsideration
38The Board makes no finding regarding the Applicant’s request to pause or stay the Order pending a reconsideration for the reasons that follow.
39The Applicant made no submissions regarding the Board’s treatment of her request to pause or stay the Order pending a reconsideration.
40The Respondent did not make any submissions on this request.
41As the Applicant hasn’t met its onus regarding this request, it will not be addressed further.
42In summary, the Board did not act outside its jurisdiction when it dismissed the Appellant’s late appeal, nor when it denied the Appellant’s request to pause or stay the matter pending a reconsideration.
CONCLUSION
43In conclusion, the Applicant did not make persuasive submissions on criteria (a) or (b) listed in Rule 18.2 (for full description see para [7] above). The Applicant’s burden to adequately support her Request has not been met.
ORDER
44The Applicant’s Request is dismissed.
Released: December 29, 2025
_________________________
Susan Clarke, Vice-Chair