Tribunals Ontario Animal Care Review Board

TRIBUNAUX DÉCISIONNELS ONTARIO Commission d’étude des soins aux animaux

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Before: Ashley Deathe, Vice Chair

Date of Order: 02/19/2026

17978 and 18012/ACRB

Case Name: Jessica Eyre v. Chief Animal Welfare Inspector

Written Submissions for the Appellant by: Jessica Eyre, Self-Represented

OVERVIEW

1The Appellant Jessica Eyre filed a request for reconsideration in this matter on December 16, 2025 in respect of a decision issued by the Animal Care Review Board (“Board”), dated December 3, 2025.

2This request for reconsideration arises from an adjudicator’s decision to dismiss two appeals without a hearing because the appeals were filed late: Order in Jessica Eyre v. Chief Animal Welfare Inspector, having file numbers 17978 and 18012/ACRB (the “Dismissal Order”).

3That Dismissal Order was issued after the Board provided the parties notice that the appeals may be dismissed without a hearing, the reasons for its intention to dismiss, and an opportunity to make submissions, as required by Rule 3.5 of Licence Appeal Tribunal, Animal Care Review Board, and Fire Safety Commission Common Rules of Practice and Procedure, Version I (October 2, 2017) (the “Rules”).

4The Notice of Intention to Dismiss was issued by the Board on November 24, 2025 (“NOID”) with a deadline of 7-calendar day for submissions. Neither party filed submissions in response to the NOID.

5The appeals concerned a Notice of Removal dated September 9, 2025, and a Notice of the Decision to Keep in Care dated September 19, 2025 (the “Notices”). The Appellant filed her appeals first on November 14, 2025, but did not provide a completed Notice of Appeal form until November 19, 2025. The Board found that the appellant had not proved, on a balance of probabilities, that she had filed the appeals by the 10-day deadline 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).

6The Rules specify that the Board has the power on a request for reconsideration to do one of the following:

a. Dismiss the request; b. Confirm, vary, or cancel the Tribunal’s decision or order; or c. Order a rehearing on all or part of the matter.

7In their materials, the appellant asks for a second chance to care for their animal.

8Pursuant to s. 17(2) of the Adjudicative Tribunals Accountability, Governance and Appointments Act, 2009, S.O. 2009, c. 33, Sched. 5, I have been delegated responsibility to decide this matter in accordance with the applicable rules of the Tribunal.

RESULT

9The Appellant’s request for reconsideration is dismissed.

ANALYSIS

10Reconsideration is a discretionary remedy. The grounds for a request for reconsideration to be granted are contained in Rule 18 of the Rules. In other words, the Tribunal must be satisfied that one or more of the following criteria are met:

a. The Tribunal acted outside its jurisdiction or violated the rules of procedural fairness; b. The Tribunal made an error of law or fact such that the Tribunal would likely have reached a different result had the error not been made; c. The Tribunal 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 Tribunal 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.

11The Appellant relies on the ground set out in Rule 18.2(d): that there is evidence that was not before the Tribunal 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.

12In support of their request, the Appellant submitted three handwritten pages setting out their rationale for the request, which included a summary of the Appellant’s current living situation and work status and emphasized the emotional impact of having their dog removed.

13The Appellant previously disclosed that they had been incarcerated in 2025 and the Board referenced this at paragraph 1 of the NOID. Because the Notices were dated from September 2025 and appeals filed in November 2025, the issue before the Board was whether the appeals were filed by the 10-business day statutory deadline. The Appellant did not file submissions in response to the NOID and at a paragraph 10 of the Dismissal Order, the Board noted that “no information was provided as to when the appellant received the Notice of Removal or the Notice of the Decision to Keep such that I can determine if the appeals were filed with the Board within 10-business days as required.”

14Included in the Appellant’s materials filed in support of their reconsideration request is a reference to being “home since I believe November 10, 2025.” While this is not an explicit statement as to when they received the Notices, at minimum, the Appellant is stating that is the date when they were released from incarceration.

15For the purposes of this reconsideration analysis, I accept that November 10, 2025 is when they say they learned of the Notices and I find that this is information that would likely have affected the result of the Dismissal Order. However, I am not satisfied that this information (the date they learned of the Notices) was previously unavailable or could not have been provided to the Board prior to the December 3, 2025 Dismissal Order. The Tribunal sent the Appellant a NOID on November 24, 2025, with a 7-calendar day deadline for submissions, highlighting that there was not enough information to determine if the appeals were filed within the statutory deadline. The Appellant did not respond to the NOID and the Tribunal issued the Dismissal Order.

16The grounds for reconsideration are set out in the Rules and reflect the exceptional circumstances when a Tribunal may revisit its decision. A reconsideration is not an opportunity for an appellant to reargue or re-state their position. While I am sympathetic to the Appellant’s circumstances, the criteria set out in 18.2(d) is not met.

17Therefore, the Appellant has not met the criteria for granting reconsideration pursuant to Rule 18.2 of the Rules.

CONCLUSION

18For the reasons noted above, pursuant to Rule 18.4(a) the request for reconsideration is dismissed.

Ashley Deathe Vice Chair Tribunals Ontario