Animal Care Review Board
Appeal under s. 38 of the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, 2019, S.O. 2019, c. 13.
Between:
Elisha M. Jolly Appellant
and
Chief Animal Welfare Inspector Respondent
RECONSIDERATION DECISION
Before: Debra Backstein, Vice-Chair Date of Order: April 30, 2026
Written Submissions by: The Appellant: Elisha M. Jolly, Self-Represented The Respondent: Jason Kirsh, Counsel
OVERVIEW
1Elisha M. Jolly, the Appellant, filed a request for reconsideration (Request) with the Animal Care Review Board (Board) on January 19, 2026.
2The Request arises from the Board’s Decision in Jolly v. Chief Animal Welfare Inspector, 2026 ONACRB 205, issued on January 7, 2026. In that decision, the Board varied a Statement of Account (SOA) dated October 6, 2025, from $23,420.25 to $5,855.06.
3In her Request, the Appellant submitted that there is evidence that was not before the Board when rendering its decision which would have affected the result. The Chief Animal Welfare Inspector (Respondent) opposes the Request, submitting that the Appellant failed to establish any grounds for reconsideration, and that the Request should be dismissed.
4Pursuant 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
5The Request is dismissed. The Board does not grant the Request.
PRELIMINARY MATTER - LATE SUBMISSIONS
6By Motion Order dated February 25, 2026, the Board granted the Respondent a brief extension of time to file its reconsideration submissions.
7The Respondent did not meet the extended deadline and subsequently advised that the delay was due to a clerical error. The Respondent’s submissions were filed on the next business day following the extended deadline.
8The Appellant took no position on the Respondent’s failure to meet the extended deadline and filed responding submissions addressing the Respondent’s materials without raising any objection to their timing.
9In the circumstances, I find it appropriate to accept and consider the Respondent’s submissions since the delay was brief and did not result in any prejudice to the Appellant who had an opportunity to respond and did so.
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 Appellant’s position
11The Appellant filed her Request using the Board’s Request for Reconsideration Form, selecting the box related to the ground for Rule 18.2(d), namely that there was new evidence that was not before the Board when the Board rendered its decision, which had it been obtained by her, would likely have affected the result.
12The Appellant submitted a 2024 income tax assessment document to support her position and reiterated her hearing testimony that she is not employed, is a new mother and that the current economic climate contributed to her financial hardship and inability to pay the SOA.
13The Appellant submitted that since she was self-represented, she was not aware that she should submit documents to support her position of inability to pay.
ANALYSIS
14The Board does not accept that the submitted tax document and submissions constitute “new evidence” within the meaning of Rule 18.2(d).
15The tax document predates the hearing and would have been available to the Appellant at the time the matter was heard. The Appellant has not established that the document could not have been obtained or provided with reasonable diligence prior to the hearing.
16The Board held a case conference with the parties on October 17, 2025, and issued a Case Conference Report and Order (CCRO) on October 20, 2025. Paragraphs [13] through [16] of that CCRO describe the parties’ obligations to provide disclose to each other of “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 [17] required the parties to file with the Board documents that they planned to use at the hearing.
17While I acknowledge that the Appellant was self-represented, the CCRO demonstrates that the Appellant was both aware of and consented to disclosure deadlines and was provided with an explanation of what disclosure can include.
18Self-represented parties are not relieved of their obligation to obtain and present the documents upon which they intend to rely and a reconsideration is not an opportunity for parties to re-litigate their positions or remedy deficiencies in the evidence presented at hearing.
19The Board also notes that the Board’s website provides information regarding preparing for case conferences and hearings. The website describes:
It is not mandatory to have legal representation, but how to get legal help if desired.
Parties must prepare evidence to present their case at a hearing, and a description of what constitutes evidence.
Obligations of exchanging documents with the other party and filing with the Board (Information Sheet on Disclosure).
Witnesses can be called at the hearing; and
The Board’s Rules of Practice and Procedure.
20The Board therefore does not accept the Appellant’s submission that she was unaware of the need for evidence to be submitted to support her position.
CONCLUSION
21In conclusion, the Appellant has not established that the grounds for reconsideration under Rule 18.2(d) have been met.
22The Request is an attempt by the Appellant to reargue her position and to introduce evidence that would have been available at the time of the hearing.
23Even if considered, the additional evidence would not likely have affected the outcome of the decision since the decision took into account the Appellant’s sworn testimony regarding her inability to pay, including her unemployment and new baby.
24The decision demonstrates that the Appellant’s financial circumstances were explicitly considered and weighed against the objective of cost recovery.
25The reduction of the SOA by $17,565.19 reflects the discretionary determination made on the evidence that was before the Board regarding inability to pay. The Appellant’s disagreement with the extent of the reduction does not establish that a further variance should be granted.
26The Appellant’s burden to adequately support its Request has not been met.
ORDER
27The Request is dismissed.
Released: April 30, 2026
Debra Backstein, Vice-Chair