Board File No.: 18020/ACRB
Appeal under s. 38 of the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, 2019, S.O. 2019, c. 13
Between:
Charlene M. Jackson
Appellant
and
Chief Animal Welfare Inspector
Respondent
MOTION DECISION AND ORDER
Adjudicator: Susan Clarke, Vice-Chair
Appearances:
For the Appellant: Charlene Jackson, Self-represented
For the Respondent: Jessica Holroyd, Counsel
Motion heard in writing: April 13, 2026
BACKGROUND
1Charlene Jackson, the Appellant, has an appeal of a Statement of Account (SOA) pending before the Animal Care Review Board (Board). The SOA relates to costs of treatment provided to her cat by the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector, the Respondent.
2The hearing of the appeal began on January 19 and continued on February 27, 2026. While the evidentiary portion of the hearing was completed at 5:20 p.m. on February 27, 2026, there was insufficient time for the Board to hear closing submissions from the parties.
3The parties consented to filing written closing submissions, and the Board issued an Order for Written Submissions on March 2, 2026, reflecting various requirements the parties consented to during the hearing. These included the following:
The Respondent was to provide written submissions of no more than 5 pages, typed and double-spaced, not including case law, by 12:00 p.m. on March 13, 2026.
The Appellant was to provide written submissions of no more than 5 pages, typed and double-spaced, not including case law, by 12:00 p.m. on March 20, 2026.
4The Respondent filed their written closing submissions by the deadline. The Appellant did not.
5On March 24, 2026, after the deadline for the Appellant’s written submissions had passed, the Appellant filed a Notice of Motion seeking the following relief from the Board:
An extension of time to file her closing submissions;
An increase in the length of her closing submissions; and
An in-person hearing to present closing submissions.
RESULT
6The Appellant’s request:
For an extension of time to file closing submissions is granted. The new deadline for submissions is 12:00 p.m. on April 20, 2026.
For an increase in the length of her closing submissions is denied.
To schedule an in-person hearing day for the Board to hear closing submissions is denied.
MOTION
7On March 18, 2025, the Appellant emailed the Board, requesting an extension of time to file her written submissions. The Board informed her that she was required to file a motion requesting the extension. The Board attempted to telephone the Appellant to offer assistance to her with filing the Notice of Motion form, but the phone number it had on record was out of service. The Board emailed the Appellant, requesting an alternate phone number, but received no reply.
8In response to the Appellant’s March 18, 2026, email, the Board emailed a blank copy of the Notice of Motion Form to the Appellant, with an explanation of how to complete it, and contact information should she need the Board’s assistance.
9On March 24, 2026, the Appellant filed a Notice of Motion which will be outlined in more detail below.
10I issued a Notice of Written Motion Hearing (NOWMH) to the parties on March 27, 2026, advising that a written motion hearing would be held on April 13, 2026. The Board invited the parties to make the following submissions regarding the motion:
The Respondent to provide written submissions by April 2, 2026, 5 pages in length.
The Appellant to provide written reply submissions by April 10, 2026, 3 pages in length.
11An amended NOWMH was issued on March 30, 2026, correcting a clerical error and reformatting the Appellant’s address. I decided not to change the submission dates as the corrections did not affect the parties’ ability to proceed with submissions in the first instance.
12The Respondent did not file responding submissions to the motion. On April 8, 2026, however, they advised the Board that they take no position on the motion. They also advised of a change in counsel in this matter.
13On April 7, 2026, the Appellant filed additional submissions which were for the most part the same as those filed in her motion on March 24, 2026, but also included the following new items:
She sent the Board emails regarding issues with filling out the motion form online on March 18, 2026, and on March 19.
She does not agree with having her documents made public to everyone, and should only be visible to the parties.
It was unfair that the Respondent was allowed 5 pages to respond to her motion, and she was only given 3 pages for reply.
14In an email on April 8, 2026, the Appellant also wrote the Board that she was upset that the Respondent’s counsel was no longer representing the Respondent.
ANALYSIS AND REASONS
The deadline for the Appellant’s closing submissions is extended to April 20, 2026
15For the reasons that follow, I grant the Appellant’s motion for an extension of time to file her written closing submissions to 12:00 p.m. on April 20, 2026.
16The Appellant filed her motion three weeks after the evidentiary part of the hearing was completed. In her motion she advised that (paraphrased):
It is not fair that the Respondent had 30 days to prepare its closing submissions, while she was only given 7 days to respond.
She needs more time than 7 days to defend her case. She is feeling rushed, is on disability and processes things slowly.
She needs to be mentally prepared to review everything and point out the facts to defend her case against the respondents’ evidence.
She is having ethical issues and would like the next hearing to be held at a courthouse.
17The parties were canvassed at the hearing for deadlines to file closing submissions, and the Respondent requested two weeks because counsel was in hearing the week following this hearing. The Appellant then agreed to filing her closing submissions the following week. The Appellant is misrepresenting that the Respondent had 30 days; she is also misrepresenting that she only had 7 days, as she had 3 weeks from the day that the evidentiary part of the hearing ended.
18In the Appellant’s March 18, 2026, email, she wrote about similar issues. Because of this, and her request for longer submissions, I am concerned that she may not fully understand the purpose of closing submissions. Closing submissions are an opportunity for a party to summarize key evidence and case law supportive of the party’s burden of proof on the key issues the Board is asked to decide on. They are also an opportunity to make submissions about the strengths/weaknesses of the opposing party’s evidence and what I should make of it. Written submissions should be a concise summary of this information.
19Throughout the appeal process, I have been flexible. On the first day of the hearing, January 19, 2026, I granted the Appellant’s oral motion to adjourn the hearing while she sought legal counsel, and granted additional time to file submissions. The hearing was adjourned to February 27, 2026. This caused some delay in the process. While the Board ensures that all matters move forward in a timely fashion, the reasons for expediting certain matters when animals remain in care and costs continue to accrue were not present here because this was not an appeal concerning the return of an animal. Because of this I could be more flexible with scheduling as a result.
20I am not satisfied that an extension of time to file closing submissions was necessary, or that the Appellant could not have made her request earlier. However, in the interest of fairness, recognizing that the Appellant is self-represented and has now expressed that she “processes things slowly” and “feels rushed”, and the Respondent did not object or point to any prejudice, I will grant an additional week to file written closing submissions. In this I note that she has now had since February 27, 2026, to write her submissions, not that she is only being given an extra week.
Closing submissions are limited to 5 typed pages, double-spaced
21The Appellant’s motion for an increase to the page limit for her written closing submissions is dismissed, for the reasons that follow.
22During the hearing, the parties both consented to the length of written submissions being 5 pages, exclusive of authorities. In the Appellant’s motion, she did not specify the length of written submissions she was requesting.
23I recognize the Appellant may not have appreciated what closing submissions are expected to address. However, in the Board’s acknowledgement of the Appellant’s appeal, she was directed to resources on the Board’s website which might have helped. She could also have written to the Board asking for clarification of what was expected in closing submissions, but did not.
24While it is not clear if the Appellant intends to include new evidence, if she does, this is not permitted at this stage because the evidentiary portion of the hearing is closed.
25In paragraph [18] above, I have given some explanation regarding what is expected in closing submissions. I think a 5-page limit is fair, as the parties are expected to be concise.
The Board denies the request for an in-person hearing to present closing submissions
26For the reasons that follow, the Appellant’s request to have an in-person hearing to deliver closing submissions is denied.
27At the conclusion of the hearing on February 27, 2026, both parties were given the opportunity to comment on the Board’s proposal to have written submissions filed in writing. The Appellant agreed to file written closing submissions. There is also nothing in her motion materials that explains why an in-person hearing is necessary. The Appellant makes a vague reference to the fact that she is having ethical issues and would like a hearing at a courthouse. I have no information from the Appellant on why this is necessary or how an in-person hearing will assist her or the Board.
Other issues raised by the Appellant are outside the scope of this motion
28In the Appellant’s various emails and motion materials, she raised new grounds about apparent differences in the lengths of submissions for this motion, a desire to have her documents kept confidential, that she takes issue with the Respondent’s counsel changing, and with her inability to reach the Board. These are not germane to this motion.
29In filing a Notice of Motion (NOM), the party bringing a motion is expected to set out the decision or order that the party is requesting, and the grounds to be argued, including a reference to any statutory or regulatory provision, Rule, or case law relied on, and the evidence in support of the motion. The responding party is then invited to file responding submissions, typically 5 pages in length. The moving party (in this case the Appellant), is then invited to file reply submissions, typically 3 pages in length. There was no unfairness in length of submissions, because the Appellant had her opportunity in her initial NOM to make her full submissions which were not restricted in length.
30Hearings are open to the public, as are documents filed at those hearings. This was not a motion regarding this issue, and the Appellant provided no explanation for why she wants the documents to be kept confidential.
31The Board has no jurisdiction over the Respondent changing its counsel.
32As described at various points in this decision, the Board has made every effort to reach the Appellant, despite the phone number the Board has on record being out of service. The Appellant provided no evidence that she could not reach the Board by e-mail.
ORDER
33The Appellant’s motion:
For an extension of time to file her closing submissions is granted. The Board sets a final deadline of 12:00 pm on April 20, 2026.
For an increase to the page limit for closing submissions is denied. Written closing submissions are limited to 5 pages, typed and double-spaced, exclusive of authorities.
To convert the hearing format to an in-person hearing to hear closing submissions from the parties is denied. The Appellant shall submit her closing submissions in writing.
34Except for the provisions contained in this Order, all previous orders made by the Board remain in effect.
Released: April 13, 2026
Susan Clarke, Vice Chair