Appeal under s. 38 of the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, 2019, S.O. 2019, c. 13.
Between:
Robert Buchan and Brian Buchan
Appellants
and
Chief Animal Welfare Inspector Respondent
RECONSIDERATION DECISION
Adjudicator: Robert Patchett, Vice Chair
Written Submissions:
For the Appellants: Robert Buchan and Brian Buchan, self-represented
For the Respondent: Jason Kirsh, Counsel
OVERVIEW
1Robert Buchan and Brian Buchan (Appellants) filed a request for reconsideration (Request) with the Animal Care Review Board (Board) on April 21, 2026.
2The Request arises from the Board’s Motion Decision and Order in Buchan v. Chief Animal Welfare Inspector, 2026 ONACRB 236 issued on April 1, 2026 (the “Decision”). In the Decision, the ACRB dismissed an appeal of a Decision to Keep (DTK) Animals in the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector’s care after finding that it was moot because the animals were forfeited to the Crown on March 14, 2026.
3In their Request, the Appellants submit that the Board violated procedural fairness, and they alleged error in the finding that forfeiture had taken place.
4The Chief Animal Welfare Inspector (Respondent) provided written submissions in response to the Request on May 13, 2026. The Respondent opposes the Request and submits it should be dismissed because the Appellants have not demonstrated that the Board erred and have not met the test for granting the reconsideration.
5The Appellants did not file any responding submissions by the deadline.
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. The Board does not grant the Request.
ANALYSIS
8The 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
9On March 25, 2026, the Respondent submitted a Notice of Motion seeking to have the appeal dismissed because the animals had been forfeited to the Crown, and that the Board no longer had authority to order the animals returned in this appeal.
10The Appellants allege that they were advised by the Board that they did not need to make further submissions and therefore were unprepared for the motion hearing. They state that they were not given the opportunity by the Board to prepare or submit written materials.
11The Board issued its Case Conference Report and Order (CCRO) on February 25, 2026. The Board addressed preliminary and/or procedural motions and indicated they must be filed on or before March 2, 2026 in accordance with Rule 15 of the Rules. The CCRO stated as follows:
On consent, any preliminary and/or procedural motions need to be filed with the Board in accordance with Rule 15 of the Rules on or by March 2, 2026. Any preliminary/procedural motions filed after this date will require permission from the Board to proceed.
12Rule 15.2 of the Rules provides that a responding party to a motion shall serve their responding materials at least five days prior to the hearing.
13The Appellants did not file any responding materials to the motion. The Board did not issue any directions; the parties were aware that Rule 15 applied in these circumstances.
14The motion was heard on March 31, 2026, as a preliminary issue prior to the merits hearing into the DTK appeal. This was explained to the parties at the outset.
15The Decision at paragraph 13 notes that the Appellants did not seek time to file materials and that they were ready to proceed:
The Appellants did not file written materials in advance of the motion hearing. I explained the nature of the motion and that it would be heard at the outset. They did not seek more time and proceeded with oral submissions. They submitted that they believed that they had broad outlines of an agreement regarding the SOA with the Respondent, and that only some minor changes to the agreement remained to be resolved.
16Having declined the opportunity for more time to prepare written submissions, the Appellants cannot now rely on that refusal as a basis for alleging procedural unfairness by the Board.
17In these circumstances, I am satisfied that the Appellants had notice of the motion and that they have not established that they were deprived of providing written submissions or somehow denied a meaningful opportunity to participate in the hearing or otherwise that has resulted in procedural unfairness.
18I would also note that although the Notice of Motion was not filed with the consent of the Board in accordance with the Case Conference Report and Order issued on February 25, 2025, the Board did accept it. The Board did not issue any instructions or directions to the parties. In my view this does not change the outcome of the proceedings. The appellants have not referred to any jurisprudence that supports that a different outcome was possible in the circumstances or that proceeding to decide the Motion was somehow unfair to them. They were prepared to make oral submissions and there is no record that they had requested to make written submissions or requested an adjournment to make written submissions.
(B) Rule 18.2(b) & (d) – Error of Fact or Law
19The Appellants also argue that they were self-represented and did not understand the Board’s process. They state that there should have been an extension of time to permit settlement discussions to reach a final conclusion.
20Section 10 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act (SPPA) states that a party may be represented by a representative at a hearing. However, the right to representation is not absolute.
21I note that the Appellants did have legal representation when the appeal process was undertaken. That they may have parted ways with their legal representative in my view does not support the position that they were confused about the process or the state of their settlement discussions.
22The Board conducted a case conference on February 23, 2026. The Board’s process would have been explained at that time, and any issues and/or concerns about the process could have been explained and addressed at that time. The case conference would have been an opportunity to explore settlement options.
23The Appellants chose to proceed without legal representation; therefore, they cannot now argue they were confused about the process, or that somehow by inference the legal advice they had received was inadequate
24The Appellants did not submit an appeal of the Statement of Account (SOA) which ultimately led to the forfeiture of the animals when it was not paid by the deadline.
25At the motion hearing on March 31, 2026, the parties agreed that there was no final agreement and no Appeal of the SOA (see paragraphs 14-17 of the Decision).
26The Appellants, having agreed that they did not file an appeal of the SOA, cannot now argue that there ought to have been an extension of time for them to do so, in this related proceeding. If they intended to file an appeal or missed the deadline and were seeking an extension of time to do so, it was not done. The Request in this proceeding is not a substitute for commencing a different appeal of the SOA.
27The motion record before the Board contains the SOA issued to the Appellants on February 26, 2026. At the March 31, 2026, motion hearing, the Appellants acknowledged that they neither appealed nor paid the SOA by the statutory deadlines.
28The SOA form itself provides information regarding timelines for filing an appeal with the Board, as well as the consequences of forfeiture if there is no appeal or if the SOA is not paid.
29In reaching its decision that the appeal of the DTK was moot, the Board had the evidence of the SOA and the Appellants’ admissions that they had received it, and chose not to file an appeal nor pay the SOA while settlement discussions were ongoing.
30In the circumstances, the Board had relevant evidence that it relied upon, including the admissions by the Appellants. The reasons summarize the findings and the evidence they were based on, and the conclusions logically flow from them.
31Once the animals were forfeited, the Board lost its jurisdiction and could no longer order the return of the animals to the previous owners, rendering the appeal of the DTK moot.
32The Appellants also submitted that the ongoing settlement discussions somehow ought to have automatically extended the time before forfeiture occurred.
33On March 12, 2026, the Board issued an Adjournment Order, when the Appellants failed to attend the March 9, 2026, hearing. At that time the Respondents requested an adjournment citing in part the ongoing settlement discussions as set out at paragraph five (5):
The Respondents requested an adjournment in light of the Appellants absence and given that they were in settlement discussions and anticipated that a resolution may be reached within a few days.
34It appears that discussions did not bear out and that once the SOA went unpaid and was not under appeal, the animals were automatically forfeited. This, however in my view, still does not preclude the parties from entering a mutual resolution. That remains between them and the Board is not engaged and has no further role to play.
35Given that forfeiture, by statute, occurred automatically, in the absence of paying the SOA or submitting an appeal, and that there was no request for an extension of time for either, it was not unfair for the Board to proceed to hear the Motion and render the decision that it did.
36As a result, I am not satisfied that the Decision contains an error of fact or law that would have caused the Board to reach a different result had the error not been made.
(C) Submissions Seeking a Different Outcome
37The Appellants state that the outcome of the motion hearing affects their financial discussions with Respondent, how the Respondent may treat them in the future and matters to them as far as their reputation is concerned.
38They ask that the Board cancel the Decision.
39These submissions do not identify an error in the Decision, nor do they rely on any of the grounds on which reconsideration can be granted. Rather, they seek a different outcome based on their personal circumstances, together with further explanations about how the decision may affect them.
40Reconsideration is not an opportunity to revisit the merits or to change the outcome of the decision based on sympathy or post-hearing developments. As a result, the Appellants’ submissions do not support granting the Request.
CONCLUSION
41In conclusion, the Appellants have not established that the grounds for reconsideration in accordance with Rule 18.2 have been met.
42The Request reflects the Appellants’ disagreement with the Board’s finding of mootness.
43Once the animals were forfeited, the Board had no authority to order the return of the animals as requested by the Appellants. It remains for the parties to continue any settlement discussions on matters in which the Board has no role to play.
ORDER
44The Request is dismissed.
Released: May 28 2026
Robert Patchett, Vice-Chair