Applications 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 30, 2025.
2The Request arises from a Decision dated October 6, 2025 (MacGillivary v Chief Animal Welfare Inspector, 2025 ONACRB 182 (the Decision)), in which the Board granted the Respondent’s, the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector’s motion and dismissed the Applicant’s Application for Return of her 31 cats (File 17374/ACRB) and her Application for Revocation of an Order (File 17379/ACRB), for mootness.
3The Board determined mootness in the Application for Return of the cats because the cats had been forfeited to the Crown pursuant to s. 35 Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, 2019, S.O. 2019, ch. 13 (PAWS Act); mootness in the Application for Revocation of an Order was determined because the Respondent withdrew the Order during the hearing.
4The Applications were made pursuant to s.38 of the PAWS Act. The Applicant’s Request was limited to the decision related to her Application for Return of her cats.
5Pursuant 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
6The Request is dismissed.
ANALYSIS OF RECONSIDERATION REQUEST
7The 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 Parties’ Positions
8The Applicant requested a reconsideration of the Decision, and that Request be joined with a request for reconsideration of ACRB File 17572; the latter file was not part of the Decision. At the same time, she indicated a review of ACRB File 17379 was not necessary as she is not contesting the dismissal of the Application for the Order to be revoked. She indicated that she has requested a reconsideration of ACRB File 17572 separately.
9The Applicant’s position is that the Board acted outside its jurisdiction or violated the rules of procedural fairness, and that it made an error of law or fact such that it likely would have reached a different result had the error not been made. As a remedy, she has asked for a re-hearing of her Application for the return of her animals (ACRB File 17374), and stated that she has the right to appeal to Divisional Court. The Applicant asked that “all dates stay the same for the original filing material as that would be pertinent to proper filing and Divisional Court”, however it is not clear what she meant by this request. As a further remedy, the Applicant requested that her animals not be sold or euthanized.
10The Respondent opposed the Applicant’s Request. It submitted that the Applicant’s allegations are “mere unsupported assertions of her dissatisfaction with the Board’s Decision, unfounded criticisms of Animal Welfare Services, and an attempt to re-litigate her applications.” It further submitted that the allegations “fail to establish any grounds for reconsideration and the Applicant’s request should be dismissed.”
The Board will not join the request for reconsideration of ACRB File 17572 with the Request
11The Board dismisses the Applicant’s request to join the Request with another request for reconsideration of its file 17572/ACRB.
12Board file 17572/ACRB was an appeal of a Statement of Account (SOA) dated July 21, 2025, and appealed on August 25, 2025. The appeal was dismissed without a hearing by the Board on October 14, 2025, as the statutory requirements for bringing an appeal had not been met.
13The Applicant submits that hearing all three Board files together would ensure procedural fairness, but did not explain how. Nor did the Applicant provide any reasons why she is requesting a reconsideration of the Decision to dismiss the appeal of the SOA.
14The Board dismisses the request to join the Request with the request for reconsideration of Board file 17572/ACRB on the basis that no information was provided regarding why the Applicant is appealing the Decision for 17572/ACRB, or how joining the two would be procedurally fair. The Board will hear the request for reconsideration of 17572/ACRB in regular course.
A reconsideration is not an opportunity to lodge a complaint about another party
15The Board will not consider the Applicant’s complaint that the Respondent failed to exercise procedural fairness in its actions, for the reasons that follow.
16Through 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.
17The 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, even though the Respondent made submissions on the issues, the complaint and responding submissions will not be addressed here because the Board lacks jurisdiction to hear complaints against the Respondent.
A reconsideration is not an opportunity to raise new grounds of appeal
(a) The Notice of Removal was not before the Board during the hearing
18The Board will not consider the Applicant’s claim that the Notice of Removal (NOR) was not properly served, for the reasons that follow.
19On page 2 of the Request, the Applicant stated that on July 4, 2025, the inspector did not properly serve the notice of removal of her cats (the NOR). Later, on pages 4 and 5 of the Request, the Applicant stated the service dates for the NOR, the Decision to Keep notice, and the SOA were changed to create an unrealistic timeline as no request to have the dates changed was made.
20The NOR was never appealed to the Board, and the issue of service of the NOR was not raised at the hearing. A reconsideration is not an opportunity to raise new grounds of appeal.
21The Board concurs with the Respondent, that the Board acted pursuant to its authority, upheld the rules of procedural fairness, and did not err in law or fact when it did not address service of the NOR in its Decision as it was not raised at the hearing.
(b) The Applicant did not request an Accommodation
22The Board will not consider the Applicant’s claim that her disabilities prevented her from understanding the Respondent’s motion to dismiss (motion) her two Applications, for the reasons that follow.
23On page 3 of the Request, the Applicant submitted that the “overwhelming amount of unreasonable and unnecessary documents should have been taken into account when also dealing with disabilities as I am a stroke patient which has affected my right hemisphere which effects my short term memory and effects the left side of my body causing paralyzation, I have also had two knee replacements done and recently broke my hip making me officially bed bound. By providing documents that are not very related to the motion before the courts is also not in accordance with the rules (sic)”.
24The Applicant provided no examples of what documents in the motion were unnecessary, nor did she provide any medical documentation regarding her medical condition.
25The Applicant did not identify what ground for reconsideration, her claim regarding accommodations is made. The Board reviews it under Rule 18.2(a) as a possible issue of procedural fairness.
26The Board held a case conference prior to the hearing, on July 25, 2025, with both parties in attendance. The Case Conference Report and Order issued on August 7, 2025, did not indicate that the Applicant needed any accommodations, stating only that the Applicant might later contact the Board with a completed Accommodations Form. This was never submitted.
27The Respondent’s motion, submitted on August 15, 2025, was on the Board’s 2-page Notice of Motion form. The supporting submissions were 71 pages, and organized under the headings as: Part I – FACTS, Part II – ARGUMENT, and Part III – REMEDY SOUGHT (in total, 6 pages). Referenced documents were appended. The Applicant did not specifically identify any of the documents submitted as being unnecessary.
28The Applicant’s response to the motion, filed with the Board on August 22, 2025, did not raise any issues related to her disabilities.
29During the hearing, the Applicant and her son requested that her son act as the Applicant’s representative because she was paralyzed. Her request was granted after hearing submissions. The Applicant made no request for additional accommodations.
30During the motion hearing, the Applicant did not raise any issue that her disabilities made it challenging for her to comprehend the impact of the Respondent’s motion.
31The Board agrees with the Respondent’s submissions (paras [33] through [37]) that the Board did not violate the rules of procedural fairness regarding any accommodation needs, particularly as:
The Board directed the Respondent to serve its materials on the Applicant on several occasions in three different and acceptable formats (pursuant to s. 68 of the PAWS Act and Ontario Regulation 316/23 Service of Documents), within the filing deadlines agreed to by the parties.
The Board took steps to accommodate the Applicant, asking both at the case conference and at the hearing whether she had any accommodation requests. Her only request was that her son represent her during the proceedings, which was granted.
The Applicant filed no Accommodation Form (Form), despite being provided a copy of the Form and reference being made to it at least nine times.
32The Board does not accept the Applicant’s ground for reconsideration in her Request, that her disabilities affected her ability to participate in the motion hearing, for the reason that this is a new ground. She did not raise her disabilities as an issue in her initial applications, following the case conference, in her response to the motion, or in the motion hearing. She also did not provide any evidence to support her assertion that her disabilities affected her comprehension, nor point to any documents in the motion that were unreasonable or unnecessary.
33In summary, the Board did not violate the rules of procedural fairness as it provided numerous opportunities for the Applicant to request accommodations, and granted the only request she made – to have her son represent her.
A reconsideration is not an opportunity for a party to relitigate its position
34The Board finds the Applicant’s submissions constitute an attempt to relitigate her position regarding the service date of the SOA, and forfeiture of her cats for the reasons that follow.
35In her Request, the Applicant submitted that the Respondent’s July 21, 2025, affidavit of service (affidavit) stating that the SOA was deemed served on July 24, 2025, was in error, resulting in her cats being forfeited prematurely. She also submitted that a dilemma exists in the law, that she cannot appeal a forfeiture. She submits that the Inspector’s affidavit should have been changed to reflect the July 26, 2025, service date (page 3 of the Request).
36In 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.
37The Board agrees with the Respondent in its responding submissions (paras [30] through [32]), that after considering the evidence, the Board determined that service of the SOA was effected when it was emailed to the Applicant, on July 26, 2025. The Board further found in its Decision that the Applicant could access the SOA in the email (a full description of the analysis of service is found in paras [25] through [42] of the Decision).
38In determining the date of service of the SOA, the Board asked the Respondent to recalculate the prescribed deadlines for appeal of the SOA, and payment. The Applicant did not take issue at the time with the revised dates. The Board did not request an amended affidavit of the Respondent’s witness regarding the service or forfeiture dates. These were provided orally during the hearing, after the adjudicator made a ruling that service was on July 26, 2025.
39The Applicant cannot later present the same arguments in a Request as presented during the hearing.
40In conclusion, a reconsideration is not an opportunity for a party to relitigate its position. The Applicant failed to identify an error with the Board’s treatment of her submissions, but merely asserted the error.
The Board did not act outside its jurisdiction or violate the rules of procedural fairness
41For the reasons that follow, the Board finds that it did not act outside its jurisdiction or breach the rules of procedural fairness. Therefore, the criterion for granting reconsideration in Rule 18.2(a) is not satisfied.
42On page 1 of the Request, the Applicant wrote “the motion based off the order, which was delivered to me, should be dismissed to ensure absolute fairness, as too accommodation towards self-reps as this order shows fairness is not the basis of this case as perpetrated under the human rights code “disability” and equal treatment as human rights promotes equality and takes precedence over other law (sic)”.
43The information which followed in the Request appears to largely relate to the Applicant’s complaints that the Respondent allegedly neglected procedural fairness, particularly with regards to how service was made. Other submissions relate to relitigating the Decision.
44The Applicant made no persuasive submissions describing how the Board acted outside its jurisdiction or violated the rules of procedural fairness. On page 1, the Applicant stated that the Respondent’s affidavit was not changed to reflect the corrected service date which was a procedural fairness issue; this is addressed below under errors of law and fact.
45For these reasons, the Board finds that it did not act outside its jurisdiction or violate the rules of procedural fairness.
The Board did not make an error of law or fact
46For the reasons that follow, the Board finds that it did not make an error of law or fact such that it would likely have reached a different result had the error not been made. Therefore, the criterion for granting reconsideration in Rule 18.2(b) is not satisfied.
47The Applicant made no submissions describing how the Board made an error of law or fact.
48On page 4 of the Request however, the Applicant stated that “each date below was changed creating a timeline that isn’t realistic as there was no request to have all the dates changed as again the motion was for one service date July 21st/2025 and unless reasonable these dates should not be changed to reflect the errors of the other party as no proper paperwork was submitted for this formal request and without a dignify reason should not be changed (sic).”
49On page 5 of the Request, the Applicant provided the dates the NOR, Notice of Decision to Keep, and SOA were signed, the corrected service date for the SOA (July 26, 2025), and the corrected statutory deadlines to appeal the SOA and to pay it (August 11, 2025, and August 18, 2025, respectively), and the changed forfeiture date (August 19, 2025).
50The Applicant then submitted that “these changes are immaculate and should be rectified to support the signatures and proper deadlines from the original documents as this shows clear biased that anyone can file wrongfully and get away with this as every paper signed was contemptible in the court of law (sic).”
51While the Applicant argued the fact that she had not been served the SOA by email on July 26, 2025, because she could not open the email, it was established in the Decision (paras [39] and [40]), that she was served on that date and she could open the email. The remaining submission, that new paperwork complete with signatures was required to amend the forfeiture date, is not supported by reference to any law.
52The Decision (paras [43] through [48]) addresses the adjudicator’s assessment of the actual forfeiture date of the cats based on the corrected date of service of the SOA. In hearing the motion regarding mootness based on forfeiture, it was within the Board’s jurisdiction to determine the date of service of the SOA. It was also within the Board’s jurisdiction to determine that the initial date of forfeiture submitted by the Respondent should be amended by the Respondent based on the amended service date.
53The Board agrees with the Respondent’s responding submissions (paras [38] through [42]), that the Board is permitted to rule on the SOA service date and confirm the associated statutory time periods. The Decision (para [45]) notes that the Respondent orally amended the motion, in particular the deadlines and forfeiture dates, based on the adjudicator’s finding that service was July 26, 2025.
54The Board agrees with the Respondent’s submission (para [42]), that the Board acted within its jurisdiction to determine the SOA service date by interpreting the governing statute, and that the appeal, payment and forfeiture dates flow from that and reflect the prescribed statutory time periods outlined in the PAWS Act.
55The PAWS Act does not provide any direction that notice of forfeiture must be provided to an owner or custodian. Unlike sections 30, 31, 32 and 35, which include the requirement for written notice of an Order, a Removal, a Decision to Keep in Care, Euthanization, and a Statement of Account, section 35 which describes forfeiture, does not include the requirement for a notice.
56For these reasons, the Board finds that no error of fact or law was made when it did not require the Respondent to re-issue a notice of forfeiture with the corrected dates.
CONCLUSION
57In conclusion, the Applicant did not make persuasive submissions on criteria (a) and (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, and the Board denies her Request.
ORDER
58The Applicant’s Request is dismissed.
Released: December 29, 2025
_________________________
Susan Clarke, Vice-Chair