Appeal under s. 38 of the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, 2019, S.O. 2019, c. 13.
Between:
Helder De Sousa
Appellant
and
Chief Animal Welfare Inspector
Respondent
RECONSIDERATION DECISION
Before: Susan Clarke, Vice-Chair
Written Submissions by:
The Appellant: Helder De Sousa, Appellant Drew-Jordan Maharaj, Counsel
The Respondent: Jason Kirsh, Counsel
OVERVIEW
1Helder De Sousa (Appellant) filed a request for reconsideration (Request) with the Animal Care Review Board (Board) on November 4, 2025. The Appellant asks the Board to reconsider its Order in De Sousa v. Chief Animal Welfare Inspector, 2025 ONACRB 17626, dated October 14, 2025.
2In that Order, the Board dismissed the Appellant’s appeal of a Statement of Account (SOA) without a hearing after finding that the statutory requirements for bringing the appeal had not been met because the appeal was filed late. Specifically, the Board found that the appeal was filed outside of the 10-business day timeline prescribed in s. 3 of Ontario Regulation 447/19, made under the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, 2019, S.O. 2019, ch. 13 (PAWS Act)
3The Appellant submits that the Board made an “an error of fact” and an ”error in reasoning” when it found that the appeal was not submitted within the statutory timelines. The Appellant further submits that had the Board not made the noted errors of fact or law, it likely would have reached a different result.
4The Chief Animal Welfare Inspector (Respondent) opposes the Request. It submitted that the Appellant has not demonstrated that the appeal was filed within the statutory timelines and its Request should be denied.
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 reconsideration request in accordance with the applicable rules of the Board.
RESULT
6The Request is dismissed. The Board does not grant a reconsideration.
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.
BACKGROUND
8On September 10, 2025, the Appellant emailed the Board asking if the Board had received the appeal of the SOA, indicating it was related to an earlier appeal of a Decision to Keep for the same Appellant (Board File 17358). The Appellant said the SOA appeal was emailed “on Thursday at approximately 4 pm.” The Appellant explained that he was having trouble with email and had not received any communications or confirmations of receipt from the Board since August 28, 2025. He included a September 8, 2025, email to the Board, in which he explains that he was “encountering a server error when emailing Ontario.ca addresses.” The Appellant later forwarded a screenshot of an email dated September 4, 2025 (the subject email) at 3:58:38 pm addressed to the Board, the Respondent, and Respondent’s counsel. The screenshot showed two PDF attachments, including an appeal and appendices to the appeal.
9Also on September 10, 2025, the Board received an email from The Appellant with a Notice of Appeal (NOA) of a SOA, dated September 4, 2025, and Appendix A to the NOA.
10On September 24, 2025, the Board issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (NOID) the SOA appeal on the basis that the appeal had been filed late and it had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal. In the NOID, the Board requested submissions as to why it should or should not accept the appeal.
11On October 14, 2025, after receiving submissions from both parties, the Board issued its Order pursuant to Rule 3.4(c) of its Rules, dismissing the appeal as the statutory deadline for appealing the SOA had passed.
ANALYSIS
12For 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.
The October 14, 2025, Order dismissing the SOA appeal
13On October 14, 2025, the Board issued an Order dismissing the SOA appeal on the basis that the statutory requirements for bringing the appeal had not been met. The Board found that the deadline to submit an appeal of the SOA dated August 20, 2025l was September 4, 2025, but the Board found that it had been filed on September 10, 2025.
14The adjudicator’s reasons in para [12] of the Order include that the Respondent confirmed it had not received the subject email from the Appellant either in its inboxes or junk folders; The Appellant provided an “.eml” file of the subject email in response to the NOID, and continued to rely on the screenshot of the subject email, however these were given little weight because they were formatted differently and had different time stamps.
15The adjudicator’s reasons also included that the Appellant did not forward the original of the subject email as requested; and that the screenshots of various error codes for the subject email indicate that the Appellant conceded that the appeal was not filed within the statutory deadline.
16In its Order, the Board explained why it could not exercise its discretion under Rule 3.1 of the Rules, to allow the appeal to proceed, because that Rule only permits the Board to waive or vary the Rules, not timelines prescribed in legislation, such as the appeal timelines at issue here.
The Reconsideration Request and Submissions by the Parties
17In the Request, the Appellant submitted 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.
18The Appellant submitted detailed explanations of why the formatting and time stamp on the screenshots and “.eml” file might have differed, and that he filed the email in the format requested by the Board in the NOID, but that the subject email was forwarded to the Board on November 4, 2025.
19The Appellant submitted that the adjudicator erred in her reasoning when she failed to consider the implausibility and lack of motive or necessity to create a second email, neither of which would make sense or benefit the Appellant or its Counsel. It further submitted that the adjudicator erred when she did not consider the server errors in the NOID submissions, and that the adjudicator improperly considered Counsel’s argument that they did not receive notice of failed delivery or his explanation of how this may have happened.
20The Respondent submitted that whether the screenshot and .eml are the same is not determinative, but that the Appellant had not proven on a balance of probabilities that the subject email was ever received by the Board or the Respondent, and that alone is dispositive of the issue. It added that it is not aware of any litigants before the Board experiencing a similar issue with filing on September 4, 2025
The Board 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
21The Board finds that it did not make an error of law or fact such that the Board would likely have reached a different result had the error not been made for the reasons that follow.
22The Appellant submitted that the adjudicator erred when she did not consider the details in the server error indications included in its NOID submissions, and that the adjudicator improperly considered the Appellant’s argument that they did not receive notice of failed delivery of the email. The Board considered the error messages in the NOID Decision, concluding that this was evidence that the subject email was not filed by the deadline for appealing.
23The Board is not persuaded that the finding regarding the error messages was an error when it did not engage in a more fulsome discussion of the issue. It is also not persuaded that the decision would have been different had it done so. Furthermore, the Board finds that the Appellant’s arguments are an effort to shore up his previous arguments. A Reconsideration is not an opportunity for a party to relitigate its position.
24The Board is not persuaded that not considering the implausibility and lack of motivation to create a second email in its reasoning, is an error of law or fact. The Board need not incorporate all arguments into its reasoning if it finds that it is not material to its decision.
25In summary, the Appellant has not proven on a balance of probabilities 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. For this reason, the Board will not order a reconsideration because the Appellant did not satisfy the criterion pursuant to Rule 18.2(b).
There is evidence that was not before the Board when rendering its decision, that could have been obtained previously by the Appellant, but was not
26The Board finds that the Appellant has filed new evidence that could have been filed previously but was not.
27In the NOID, the Board asked the parties to provide submissions that addressed whether or not the appeal should be dismissed on the basis of it being filed late. In particular, the Board asked for “a copy of the original September 4, 2025, email, with attachments, and not a screen shot from the appellant” to be submitted.
28In its Request, the Appellant said it filed the .eml because that was “expressly requested” by the Board. Under separate email, also on November 4, 2025, the Appellant forwarded the subject email with pdf1 attachments of the Notice of Appeal and the Appendices.
29The Board finds that this new evidence was filed on November 4, 2025, but was due no later than seven days following the NOID, which was issued to the parties on September 16, 2025.
30Pursuant to Rule 18.2(d), this is new evidence that could reasonably have been sent to the Board in response to the specific request of the Board in its NOID. The Board will not order a reconsideration because the Appellant did not satisfy the criterion.
A Reconsideration is not the time to consider new grounds of appeal, on the same information
30The Board finds that the Appellant raised a new ground when it asked the Board to consider that service should be the date indicated on the subject email.
31In its Request, the Appellant submitted that pursuant to O.Reg. 316/23 (s. 68 of the PAWS Act addresses service, and references regulations as addressing effective service), the Board should accept that the appeal was filed on the date it was emailed, even though it was never received. This is a new ground not raised in submissions to the NOID Decision.
32The parties made submissions regarding service in response to the Board’s October 14, 2025, Order (paras [14], [15]). The Appellant submitted that email is effective on the day shown on the email message, referencing O.Reg. 316/23. The Appellant further submitted that this was likely to ensure that the time the email was sent would be the date of service, rather than the date it was received.
33The Respondent submitted that, assuming that s.68 of the PAWS Act applies, the issue is the letter was never received (emphasis added).
34The Respondent further submitted that the Board has previously held that s. 68 of the PAWS Act does not apply to the filing of an appeal (citing Post v Chief Animal Welfare Inspector, File No. 17096, May 29, 2025 (unreported). The Respondent submits that following the Board’s reasoning in that case, the Appellant’s argument that the appeal should be deemed to have been filed on September 4, 2025, must also fail on that basis.
35Regardless of determining that this is a new ground, the Board finds that Section 68 of the PAWS Act provides for methods of service of orders, notices, or statements of account required or authorized to be served under the PAWS Act. It addresses when service is prescribed to have been effected, referencing the regulations. As found in Post v CAWI, s. 68 of the PAWS Act applies to service by Animal Welfare Services on a person, and not to documents filed with the Board.
36Similarly, Ontario Regulation 316/23 Service of Documents, s. 2, refers to the effective date for service of orders, notices or statements of account by various methods of service. This does not address documents filed with the Board.
37In summary, the Board dismisses this ground on the basis that it is a new ground of appeal that could have been raised at first instance. Secondly, O.Reg. 316/23 (s. 68 of the PAWS Act), does not apply to submitting appeals to the Board.
CONCLUSION
38In conclusion, the Appellant did not make persuasive submissions 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’s burden to adequately support its Request has not been met.
ORDER
39The Request is dismissed.
Released: January 20, 2026
_________________________
Susan Clarke, Vice-Chair