Tribunals ontario
Animal Care Review Board
TRIBUNAUX DÉCISIONNELS ONTARIO
Commission d’étude des soins aux animaux
AMENDED RECONSIDERATION DECISION
Before:
Raymond Ramdayal, Adjudicator
03/20/2026
17765/ACRB
Written Submissions by:
Ke Yi (Kelly) Fan
For the Applicant:
Amylynn Van, Self-represented
For the Respondent:
Ke Yi (Kelly) Fan, Counsel
OVERVIEW
1The Respondent filed a request for reconsideration in this matter on December 18, 2025 in respect of a decision dated December 12, 2025.
2The request for reconsideration arises from an adjudicator’s decision to deny the applicant’s application for the return of her animals.
3The issue that was before the Tribunal, at a two-day hearing on October 23 and 24, 2025, was whether conditions that caused the animals to be removed ceased to exist such that they can be returned to the Applicant.
4The Tribunal found the Applicant failed to show on a balance of probabilities that the conditions that caused the animals to be removed now cease to exist such that the animals can be returned.
5The Respondent submits that statements made in paragraphs 4 and 24 of the Animal Care Review Board’s (“Board”) Decision on the status of the Applicant’s attempt to appeal the Statement of Account (“SOA) under Board file number 17824/ACRB, should now be updated since new information is available. The Respondent states that there was an order, dated November 6, 2025, dismissing the appeal. The Board’s order was issued after the hearing for 17765/ACRB was completed, and while the decision was being drafted.
6The Respondent is seeking a correction of the Decision to amend these paragraphs regarding the status of the Applicant’s late appeal of the SOA under file number 17824/ACRB. Specifically, the Respondent states that the Board dismissed the SOA appeal on November 6, 2025, and this conflicts with the Board’s reference at paragraphs 4 and 24 of the Decision which says the Board has not made a determination on the SOA appeal.
7The Respondent is not requesting the Board reconsider the result of its Decision, namely that the animals should not be returned to the Applicant. Rather, the Respondent submits that the amendment will not affect the final result of the decision.
8The Respondent is therefore seeking to vary the Tribunal’s order.
9Pursuant 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
10The Respondent's request for reconsideration is dismissed.
ANALYSIS
11The grounds for a request for reconsideration are contained in Rule 18 of the Tribunal’s Common Rules of Practice and Procedure. A request for reconsideration will not be granted unless 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.
12Reconsideration is only warranted in cases where an adjudicator has made a significant legal or evidentiary mistake preventing a just outcome, where false evidence has been admitted, or where genuinely new and undiscoverable evidence comes to light after a hearing.
13The Respondent is seeking reconsideration pursuant to 18(2)(d).
14More specifically, the Respondent submits that the Tribunal not reconsider the result of its Decision, namely that the animals should not be returned to the Applicant. The Respondent is introducing this new information stating that it is important for the Board’s Decision to be factually accurate on this point to prevent any confusion about the status of the Applicant’s attempt to file a late appeal of the SOA under Board file number 17824/ACRB.
15I find that this new information does not affect or change the Decision made by the Board. The Respondent is hoping to use the Reconsideration process as a forum to request an administrative amendment to the Decision and I find it is not warranted that this clarification be made. The amendment would not change the Decision and outcome of the hearing. Furthermore, since a decision had not been reached in the 17824/ACRB matter, it did not weigh into the decision which is currently under reconsideration. It is also not appropriate for an adjudicator to independently explore new information (e.g., subsequent orders and decision outcomes) not presented at the hearing, for consideration and scrutiny.
16The reasons provided in the Board’s decisions are not living documents. The Tribunal is not required to go back and amend decisions as things change. Decisions are made at the time of the proceeding, and reasons reflect the circumstances at the time.
17The Respondent is seeking an amendment which they claim will avoid any confusion for the Appellant. I do not view this as being a compelling reason to make this administrative change. I encourage parties to bring any further information they deem relevant to the Tribunal’s attention before a decision is issued, rather than seeking a reconsideration.
18As the Respondent is explicitly seeking the Board to exercise its powers under Rule 18, and has not made persuasive submissions that the criteria under Rule 18.2 have been met, I decline to exercise my discretion to grant the Request for Reconsideration.
19The Respondent acknowledges in their request that they are not asking for a reconsideration of the order itself but wish the Board clarify a statement. That clarification is not substantive and does not change the order or decision made in this application for return. The Respondent is using the reconsideration process for the purpose of inserting information which was not presented at the hearing and was simply unavailable at the time.
20Finally, I note that Board file numbers 17824 and 17765 pertained to different issues. Issues which were considered separately and warranted different files. Even if the Board had made a decision in the SOA appeal prior to the hearing, it would not have changed the result. The statements in paras 4 and 24 do not impact the substance of the decision for 17765/ACRB.
CONCLUSION
21For the reasons noted above, I deny the Respondent's request for reconsideration.
Raymond C. Ramdayal
Adjudicator
Tribunals Ontario
Released: April 13, 2026