Animal Care Review Board
Appeal and Application under s. 38 of the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, 2019, S.O. 2019, c. 13.
Between:
Jaron Barnes
Appellant/Applicant
and
Chief Animal Welfare Inspector
Respondent
RECONSIDERATION DECISION
Before: Debra Backstein Vice-Chair
Date of Order: May 7, 2026
Written Submissions by:
The Appellant: Jaron Barnes, Self-Represented
The Respondent: Adrien Iafrate, Counsel
OVERVIEW
1Jaron Barnes, the Appellant/Applicant (hereinafter “Appellant”), filed a request for reconsideration (Request) with the Animal Care Review Board (Board) on March 10, 2026.
2The Request arises from the Board’s Decision in Barnes v. Chief Animal Welfare Inspector, 2026 ONACRB 212, issued on February 18, 2026 (the “Decision”). In the Decision, the Board confirmed a Statement of Account (SOA) dated November 18, 2025 in the amount of $5048.80 and dismissed the Appellant’s Application for Return of his dog, Bella.
3In his Request, the Appellant submits the Request is warranted on the basis of alleged procedural unfairness, alleged errors of fact, alleged reliance on false evidence and new evidence including medical evidence.
4The 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.
5In addition, a supplementary motion was brought by the Appellant seeking the same relief as the relief sought in the Request.
6Pursuant 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
7The Request is dismissed as is the motion.
PRELIMINARY MATTER – MOTION MATERIALS
8On April 16, 2026, the Appellant brought a motion seeking a revocation of the SOA, as well as the return of Bella. The Appellant also sought to revoke a separate Statement of Account dated March 12, 2026, which was the subject of a hearing on April 13, 2026, before another Board member, and is not at issue in this Request. Accordingly, I address only the motion requests relating to the Decision.
9The relief sought in the motion materials overlaps entirely with the relief sought in the Request. To the extent the motion materials contain additional submissions, I have considered them as part of the Request. The motion materials were served on the Respondent, who had an opportunity to respond. In the circumstances, I find it appropriate to address the motion through the Request process and no separate determination on the motion is required.
ANALYSIS OF THE 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
(A) Rule 18.2(a) - Procedural Fairness
Late Disclosure:
11The Appellant submits that the hearing was procedurally unfair due to the Respondent’s late document disclosure.
12This issue was addressed at the commencement of the hearing. The Respondent did not dispute the late filing of the materials and noted that this had been due to a clerical error. The Respondent noted that the Appellant had also failed to comply with his disclosure obligations as he did not provide witness statements in advance of the hearing.
13The Appellant submits that the late disclosure of the Respondent’s materials impaired his ability to meaningfully participate in the hearing and respond to the case against him.
14The issue of late disclosure was addressed at the hearing. The Board exercised its discretion to admit both the Respondent’s and the Appellant’s late evidence. The Appellant was offered an opportunity to review the Respondent’s materials and to request additional time, including the possibility of an adjournment. The Appellant declined that opportunity and confirmed that he was prepared to proceed.
15Having declined the opportunity for additional time to review the materials, the Appellant cannot now rely on that refusal as a basis for alleging procedural unfairness by the Board.
16In these circumstances, the Appellant has not established that the admission of the late materials deprived him of a meaningful opportunity to participate in the hearing or otherwise resulted in procedural unfairness.
Accommodation:
17The Appellant submits that the Board failed to accommodate him during the hearing. He states that he was experiencing anxiety and mental health difficulties which affected his ability to participate fully in the proceedings.
18The Appellant’s position is that, in light of these circumstances, the Board ought to have provided accommodation, including pausing or adjusting the hearing process.
19There was nothing before the board to establish that the Appellant communicated a need for an accommodation during the hearing or requested an adjournment or other procedural adjustment on that basis.
20To the contrary, the Board provided opportunities for breaks to both parties, and specifically to the Appellant on numerous occasions during the hearing. The Appellant was also provided with opportunities to pause the proceedings, including to prepare for the cross-examination of the Respondent’s witnesses.
21The duty to accommodate requires that a party communicate their need for an accommodation to the Board so that appropriate steps can be considered. There is no failure to accommodate when there is no communication that an accommodation is needed.
22In these circumstances, the Appellant has not established a breach of procedural fairness, not has he demonstrated that any alleged failure to accommodate would likely have affected the result.
(B) Rule 18.2(b) - Error of Fact or Law
23The Appellant submits that the Decision contains errors in its interpretation of the veterinary evidence. In particular, he challenges the Board’s findings with respect to a veterinarian visit on August 31, 2025, the timing of some of Bella’s injuries and the Board’s conclusion that those injuries were consistent with non-accidental trauma that had occurred “a few days”, prior to the Appellant taking her for veterinary care.
24The veterinary evidence before the Board included the testimony of Dr. Kyle Goldie, who provided an expert opinion and report regarding the nature and cause of Bella’s injuries. As summarized in the Respondent’s submissions, this evidence included observations of physical injury requiring treatment, concerns regarding delayed veterinary care, and an opinion that the injuries were consistent with non-accidental trauma and indicative of an ongoing risk to Bella while in the Appellant’s care.
25The Appellant disputes these conclusions and submits that the injuries were misinterpreted, that alternative explanations were not considered by the Board and that the evidence does not support a finding of a pattern of harm.
26The Board’s findings were based on the evidence before it and included veterinary records and expert testimony. The Appellant’s submissions amount to a request for the Board to reinterpret this evidence and alter the conclusions that were drawn.
27These submissions amount to the Appellant’s disagreement with the Board’s findings and the weight assigned to the evidence and do not establish an error of fact or law for the purpose of reconsideration.
(C) Rule 18.2(c) - False Evidence
28The Appellant submits that the Board relied on false or misleading evidence in the Decision, specifically, a statement provided by a neighbour regarding the Appellant’s interactions with Bella. The Appellant suggests that the statement was inaccurate and contributed to an unfair characterization of his conduct.
29To establish a ground for reconsideration under Rule 18.2(c), the Appellant must demonstrate not only that evidence was false or misleading, but that it was relied upon and affected the result.
30While the neighbour’s statement was admitted into evidence, it was not relied upon or considered in making the findings in the Decision. The Board’s findings were based on video evidence, veterinary records and expert testimony.
31The Appellant has not established that the neighbour’s statement was a determinative factor in my findings, nor that the outcome of the Decision would likely have been different in its absence. Accordingly, this ground cannot be established.
(D) Rule 18.2(d) - Error of Fact or Law
32As part of the Request, the Appellant submitted additional documentary materials including medical and therapeutic information relating to his mental health. These documents address the Appellant’s personal circumstances as well as his treatment and prognosis.
33The Appellant also relies on these additional materials to expand upon his account of various events, his conduct and his efforts to rehabilitate.
34To constitute a ground for reconsideration under Rule 18.2(d), the evidence must not have been available at the time of the hearing, must not have been obtainable with reasonable diligence and must be likely to have affected the result.
35There is no indication as to why the Appellant’s newly submitted materials could not have been provided at the time of the hearing as they reflect information that existed at the time of the hearing. These documents therefore do not constitute new evidence.
36My findings and Decision are not undermined by information regarding post-hearing treatment, rehabilitation or improved circumstances. To the extent that the materials refer to post-hearing information, including medical and therapeutic updates, they reflect subsequent developments and do not establish that the circumstances giving rise to the Decision had changed at the time of the hearing.
37A reconsideration is not an opportunity for a party to supplement the evidentiary record or submit additional information that could have been presented at the hearing or developments that have occurred following the hearing that do not fall within Rule 18.2(d).
38The Appellant has also not established that the additional materials would likely have affected the outcome of the Decision.
(E) Submissions Seeking a Different Outcome
39The Appellant again emphasizes his affection for Bella, his remorse and a willingness to take further steps to address his conduct.
40He also submits that he is unable to pay the SOA and that the amount should be revoked or varied.
41These submissions do not identify an error in the Decision but rather seek a different outcome based on the same or similar evidence, together with further explanations of conduct.
42As previously stated, a reconsideration is not an opportunity to revisit the merits or to change an outcome of the Decision based on mitigation, sympathy or post-hearing developments. As a result, the Appellant’s submissions do not support a successful Request.
CONCLUSION
43In conclusion, the Appellant has not established that the grounds for reconsideration under Rule 18.2 have been met.
44The Request reflects the Appellant’s disagreement with the Board’s findings and an attempt to reargue the case or add to the evidentiary record in a manner that does not adequately support the Request for the reasons noted above. The motion is dismissed for the same reasons.
45The Appellant’s burden to adequately support its Request and the relief sought in the Motion has not been met.
ORDER
46The Request is dismissed as is the Motion.
Released: May 7, 2026
Debra Backstein, Vice-Chair