Carl Hanna v. Chief Animal Welfare Inspector, 2026 ONACRB 209

Carl Hanna v. Chief Animal Welfare Inspector

Date: 01/27/2026

Appeal under s. 38 of the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, 2019, S.O. 2019, c. 13.

Between:

Carl Hanna

Applicant

and

Chief Animal Welfare Inspector

Respondent

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Before: Susan Clarke, Vice-Chair

Date of Order: January 26, 2026

Written Submissions by:

The Applicant: Carl Hanna, Self-represented

The Respondent: Jessica Holroyd, Counsel

OVERVIEW

1Carl Hanna, the Applicant, filed a request for reconsideration (Request) with the Animal Care Review Board (the Board) on December 8, 2025. The Request arises from the Board’s Decision (Hanna v. Chief Animal Welfare Inspector, 2025 ONACRB 193 dated November 17, 2025 (Hanna v. CAWI)) (decision).

2The appeal was for a Statement of Account (SOA #2) issued by Animal Welfare Services on August 19, 2025, in the amount of $41,566.85. The costs reflected in the SOA were for the care of the Applicant’s fourteen dogs while they were in the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector’s care, the Respondent’s, following their removal on June 24, 2025. The SOA under appeal was the second issued to the Applicant.

3During the hearing, the Respondent advised the Board, that it was amending the SOA from $41,566.85 to $38,007.35. In the decision, the Board confirmed SOA #2 dated August 19, 2025, to $38,007.35.

4In his Request, the Applicant submitted that there is evidence that had not been before the Board when rendering its decision, which could not have been obtained previously by the Applicant, and which would likely have affected the result. The Respondent opposes the Request, submitting that the Applicant failed to establish any grounds for reconsideration, and that the Request should be dismissed.

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 for reconsideration is dismissed.

PRELIMINARY MATTER

7On December 8, 2025, the Board received an email from Sandra Powell, on behalf of the Applicant, containing the Request on the Board Form. It included the Applicant’s name, but was signed by Sandra Powell. A second email from her contained submissions in support of the Request. Sandra Powell wrote that she was submitting the paperwork for Carl Hanna.

8On December 9, 2025, the Board responded to Ms. Powell, asking for the Applicant’s consent to have Ms. Powell submit the documents on his behalf. Mr. Hanna immediately responded, writing that Sandra Powell was sending correspondence on his behalf.

9The Board accepts the correspondence submitted by Sandra Powell on the Applicant’s behalf. In the Board’s view, a Declaration of Representative is not required when an individual is limiting their involvement to sending correspondence.

ANALYSIS OF RECONSIDERATION REQUEST

10The 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

11The Applicant filed his Request using the Board’s Request for Reconsideration Form, selecting the box related to the ground for Rule 18.2(d) for new information, as described in paragraph [10] above.

12The Applicant submitted emails to support his position that he had new information to submit with respect to the following:

1. The returned male dogs were in thin condition, with photographs to support his position.

2. He was persuaded by the Respondent to withdraw his appeal of the removal of his dogs, and his application for their return, with supporting emails (email chains between the Applicant and the Respondent).

3. He lacks financial ability to pay SOA #2, with supporting emails and documents, and settlement discussions.

13The Applicant also submitted that he could have benefited from legal counsel, had he been able to afford one.

ANALYSIS

14The Applicant provided submissions on each paragraph of the decision, noting where he disagreed or had an alternate version of events.

15I have addressed the Applicant’s submissions, under the following headings for clarity, addressing why his Request has been dismissed.

A reconsideration is not an opportunity for a party to relitigate its position

16The Board finds that much of the Applicant’s submissions constitute an attempt to relitigate his position or to disagree with the Board’s findings in the decision for the reasons that follow.

17The Applicant responded to paragraph [3] of the decision, which was merely a summary of the Respondent’s May 27, 2025, Order, and to paragraph [4], which summarized the date of the animals’ removal, elaborating on what his submissions were at the hearing.

18There are examples of where the Applicant has tried to relitigate his appeal; all were argued at the hearing:

1. The Respondent encouraged him to withdraw other appeals as a condition of his animals being returned to him.

2. The dogs were returned late because the inspector was on vacation.

3. The costs on SOA #2 were not necessary because the dogs should not have been removed by the Respondent.

4. Vaccinations were given unnecessarily to the dogs.

19The Board notes that the Applicant submitted emails between the parties to support his submission that he was encouraged by the Respondent to withdraw other appeals before the Board. In paragraphs [12] through [15] of the decision, the Board already addressed this concern, indicating that it allowed the parties to provide their positions on the removal of the dogs as it might have some bearing on the quantum of SOA #2. Paragraph [14] reflects that the Applicant admitted under oath that he had not fully complied with the order for compliance, and that he was unable to fully comply until he moved to a rural property where he no longer had to crate his dogs. The Board accepted this as part of the evidence that the removal of the dogs was warranted, supporting later invoices for boarding and veterinarian costs.

20The Board agrees with the Respondent’s submissions where, in response to the Applicant’s submissions that the dogs could have been returned to him sooner and that this would have had a bearing on the quantum of SOA #2, it indicated that this was argued at the hearing and was not new evidence, and not sufficient grounds to grant a reconsideration of the decision.

21The Board agrees with the Respondent’s submissions where it stated that a reconsideration is not an opportunity for parties to correct the shortcomings of their submissions and evidence at the hearing, as parties are required to put their best case forward at the hearing.

22Again, a reconsideration is not an opportunity for a party to relitigate its position, or to simply disagree with the Board’s decision. At no point did the Applicant indicate that the Board erred in its findings as the basis for these submissions, nor did he provide new information.

A reconsideration is not an opportunity for a party to request a new hearing, having realized that a more favourable outcome might have occurred had he retained counsel

23The Board finds that the Applicant’s submissions constitute an attempt to have the Board order a new hearing because he did not have legal counsel at the first hearing who could have assisted him in providing evidence. While the Applicant did not point to one of the grounds in Rule 18.2 for this submission, it appears that he is engaging with clause (a) that the Board violated the rules of procedural fairness.

Presenting Evidence

24Repeatedly in the Applicant’s Request submissions, he submitted that his lack of preparation could be attributed to not having legal representation. For example, in paragraph [10] of his Request submissions, he stated “had I qualified for legal representation I would have been made aware of the need for documentation prior to the hearing. Legal representation was not affordable for me. Therefore, I was decidedly disadvantaged in this process.” In addition, in paragraph [22] he stated, “The statements in this section, again, no legal representation to be advised to include evidence to support”(sic).

25The Board held a case conference with the parties on September 11, 2025, and issued a Case Conference Report and Order (CCRO) on September 15, 2025, reflecting hearing details. Paragraphs [16] through [19] describe the requirement for the parties to disclose “any document and/or thing that they intend to rely upon at the hearing including, but not limited to written statements of each witness’ anticipated evidence, invoices, and inspectors’ notes”. Paragraph [20] describes documents to be filed with the Board with evidence each party planned to use at the hearing.

26The Board agrees with the Respondent’s submissions that the Board’s website provides information regarding preparing for case conferences and hearings. Furthermore, in the Board’s initial acknowledgement letter to the Applicant regarding his appeal, he was directed to the Board’s website where the following information is provided:

1. It is not mandatory to have legal representation, but how to get legal help if desired;

2. Parties must prepare evidence to present their case at a hearing, and a description of what constitutes evidence;

3. Exchanging documents with the other party and filing with the Board (Information Sheet on Disclosure);

4. Calling witnesses at the hearing; and

5. The Board’s Rules of Practice and Procedure.

27The Board further notes that this section on its website provides information on filing requests for reconsideration.

28The Applicant cannot thus claim that he was unaware of the need for evidence to be submitted to support his position.

Legal Representation

29In response to the Applicant’s issue that he was disadvantaged in the process because legal representation was not affordable for him, the Respondent stated in paragraph [31] of its submissions that it is unclear how this assertion fits in the Request, and that this is not sufficient grounds to grant a reconsideration. The Respondent submitted the finding in Davids v. Davids (1999 CanLII 9289 (ON CA), 1999 OJ No 3930, para 36):

Fairness does not demand that the unrepresented litigant be able to present his case as effectively as a competent lawyer. Rather, it demands that he have a fair opportunity to present his case to the best of his ability.

30At no time during the hearing did the Applicant raise the issue that he needed counsel. Nor is this a procedural fairness issue, as the Board gave the Applicant every opportunity to make submissions on his grounds of appeal.

31The Board finds that the Applicant’s submission that he could have presented his case better had he engaged legal counsel is not grounds for granting a reconsideration. He was provided sufficient information on submitting evidence, and case law supports that procedural fairness does not dictate that parties be represented by counsel. The Board’s process is navigable by non-lawyers, and during the case conference, the adjudicator ensured that the parties were made aware of the hearing process.

The Board does not have jurisdiction to hear complaints against the Respondent, and will not hear new evidence that could have been submitted at the hearing

32The Board finds that the Applicant’s submissions regarding the condition of the returned male dogs is new information, but it could have been adduced at the hearing. Further, it is an apparent attempt to have the Board consider complaints against the Respondent.

New evidence

33In paragraph [19] of his submissions, the Applicant took issue with the return of his male dogs, saying that they were thin. He submitted three photographs of two dogs as new evidence. In an email to the Board on December 23, 2025, the Applicant stated the Board should consider this in the Reconsideration and revoke SOA #2 on this basis.

34The Board agrees with the Respondent’s submission in paragraph [23], when it stated that the Applicant failed to indicate what bearing, if any, these photos would have had on the decision.

35The Board does not draw a conclusion regarding the Respondent’s further submission that, had the photographs been presented at the hearing, they would likely not have affected the decision. While this is new information to the Board and might have affected the decision, it is not information that could not have been obtained previously by the Applicant before the hearing. The dogs were returned to the Applicant in early August, almost 2 months before the hearing. The Applicant could have made these submissions at the hearing but did not.

36A reconsideration is not an opportunity to submit new evidence unless it could not have been obtained previously by the party now seeking to introduce it (Rule 18.2(d)).

Complaints against the Respondent

37The Board finds that the submissions further indicate that the Applicant may be attempting to lodge a complaint against the Respondent regarding its care of the animals while in their care. The grounds for reconsideration are described in Rule 18 of the Rules and do not include considering complaints against the Respondent or its agents. Complaints are addressed in Part III of the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, 2019, S.O. 2019, ch. 13 (PAWS Act).

A reconsideration is not an opportunity to raise new grounds of appeal

38The Board will not consider the Applicant’s claim that he lacked the financial ability to pay the SOA #2, for the reasons that follow.

39Paragraph [10] of the CCRO states that one of the Applicant’s grounds of appeal of SOA #2, was that he is unable to pay it, given his current income and expenses. During the hearing, however, the Applicant denied that he had submitted this as a ground of appeal. This is reflected in paragraphs [40] through [42] of the decision.

40Furthermore, he provided no evidence during the hearing to indicate he ever intended to argue this ground.

New Ground – Inability to Pay the SOA #2

New information

41To support his position regarding inability to pay SOA #2, the Applicant submitted an email on December 23, 2025, to the Board, forwarding an email chain including a July 23, 2025, email from Respondent’s counsel to the Applicant and the Applicant’s response on October 28, 2025.

43The Applicant submitted an additional email on December 23, 2025, to the Board, forwarding an October 28, 2025, email to Respondent’s counsel in which he attached documentation.

44It appears that the two emails forwarded to the Board are evidence that the parties had engaged in settlement discussions. Section 35(5) of the PAWS Act provides for written agreements between the parties to extend the time for payment or to reduce the amount to be paid, or both.

45Settlement agreements are not within the Board’s jurisdiction, and there is no indication from the Applicant’s submissions that settlement privilege with respect to these discussions between the parties was waived.

46The Applicant’s email submissions are new information; however, the Board will not consider them because:

1. The emails and their contents appear to be evidence of settlement discussions. As described above, the Board does not have jurisdiction to review settlement discussions without permission from both parties.

2. The documents submitted by the Applicant could have obtained in time for the hearing but were not.

3. A ground for appeal cannot be considered after the fact, having been withdrawn at the hearing, and having apparently failed at settlement discussions.

4. Even if the Board were to accept re-instating this ground, the new evidence is insufficient to support making a decision.

47A reconsideration is not an opportunity to attempt to achieve a more favourable conclusion with new grounds and new information, particularly where the Applicant initially withdrew the ground at the hearing.

CONCLUSION

48In conclusion, the Applicant did not meet the criteria for Reconsideration in Rule 18 of the Rules.

49On this basis, the Applicant’s burden to adequately support his Request has not been met.

ORDER

50The Applicant’s Request is dismissed.