Tribunals Ontario
Animal Care Review Board
TRIBUNAUX DÉCISIONNELS ONTARIO
Commission d’étude des soins aux animaux
RECONSIDERATION DECISION
Before: Peter Simmons, Vice Chair
Date of Order: 06/10/2026
File: 18205/ACRB
Case Name: Zohaib Masood v. Chief Animal Welfare Inspector
Written Submissions for the Appellant by: Zohaib Masood, Self-Represented
Written submissions for the Respondent by: Jessica Holroyd, Counsel, Chief Animal Welfare Inspector
OVERVIEW
1The Appellant, Zohaib Masood, filed a request for reconsideration in this matter on February 24, 2026, in respect of a decision issued by the Animal Care Review Board (“Board”), dated February 10, 2026, which dismissed the Appellant’s appeal without a hearing because his appeal was filed late.
2The appeal concerned a Statement of Account (“SOA”) issued by the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector (“Respondent”), dated December 21, 2025. The Appellant filed his appeal on January 14, 2026.
3Having noted the 10-business-day deadline prescribed in s. 3 of Ontario Regulation 447/19 (the “Regulation”) made under the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, 2019, S.O. 2019, ch 13 (“PAWS Act”), the date of the SOA and the date that the Appellant filed his appeal, the Board issued a Notice of Intention to Dismiss the appeal (“NOID”) on January 23, 2026, pursuant to Rules 3.4(c) and 3.5 of Licence Appeal Tribunal, Animal Care Review Board, and Fire Safety Commission Common Rules of Procedure (“Rules”) stating that the Appellant’s appeal may not have met the statutory requirements. The parties were invited to provide submissions on the NOID by January 30, 2026. The Appellant filed submissions by the deadline. The Respondent did not file submissions in response to the NOID.
4After considering the submission received from the Appellant, the Board issued its decision to dismiss (“Dismissal Order”) the appeal of the SOA on February 10, 2026, concluding that the appeal was filed after the statutory deadline. The Board has no discretion to accept late appeals.
5On February 24, 2026, the Appellant filed a request for reconsideration of the Dismissal Order, and on March 6, 2026, the Respondent was invited to provide responding submissions to the Appellant’s request for reconsideration. The Respondent submitted responding submissions on March 13, 2026.
6Rule 18.4 of the Rules specifies that the Board has the power on a request for reconsideration to do one of the following:
a. Dismiss the request; or
b. After providing the Respondent with an opportunity to make submissions,
i. Confirm, vary, or cancel the Board’s decision or order; or
ii. Order a rehearing on all or part of the matter.
7In their submissions, the Appellant asks that the Dismissal Order be set aside, and his appeal be allowed to proceed because the Board made a jurisdictional error or violated his procedural fairness rights, and made an error of law or fact such that the Board would likely have reached a different result had the error not been made.
8Pursuant 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 Board.
RESULT
9The Appellant’s request for reconsideration is dismissed.
ANALYSIS
10Reconsideration is a discretionary remedy. The grounds for a request for reconsideration to be granted are contained in Rule 18 of the Rules, and the Board must be satisfied that one or more of the following criteria are met:
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.
11In his reconsideration request, the Appellant relies on the grounds set out in Rule 18.2(a), specifically alleging that the Board acted outside its jurisdiction and violated the rules of procedural fairness, and Rule 18.2(b) specifically alleging that the Board made errors of law such that the Board would have likely reached a different decision had the errors not been made.
12In support of the request, the Appellant submitted two pages explaining his rationale for the request. The Appellant argued that the Board committed a breach of procedural fairness and committed an error of law in that:
a. The time for the Appellant to file his appeal had not begun because the notice he received was incomplete and insufficient;
b. Even if the time had begun, the Board could consider the reasons for the delay in filing his appeal as one of the factors for confirming, revoking or varying the SOA; and,
c. The Board’s Dismissal Order did not acknowledge all of the issues raised by the Appellant or give an explanation for how these were considered.
13The Respondent’s responding submissions argue that the Appellant failed to establish the grounds for reconsideration and requests the reconsideration request be dismissed.
Calculating time to file the appeal
14The SOA was effectively served on December 21, 2025, which was explained in the Dismissal Order, and is supported by the Respondent’s Certificate of Service also dated December 21, 2025, that was provided to the Appellant via email.1 The Appellant submits that the “notice”, which the Board understands to be referring to the SOA, was “incomplete and insufficient” because it lacked an itemized breakdown of services, invoices, care logs, or treatment records.
15The Appellant provided no details or evidence to support his submissions that the notice/SOA was incomplete or insufficient, or that his delay in filing was the result of, or influenced by, a lack of understanding of the costs or the ability to question any of them. The appeal filed on January 14, 2026, included the supporting invoice to the SOA with itemized costs for daily care and veterinary care totalling the amount shown on the SOA.
16The Appellant connects the removal of his animals to the late filing of the SOA appeal. He states in his submission that the “delay” in his filing of the appeal is because he was prevented “from contemporaneously understanding, mitigating or questioning the costs incurred”.
17The Appellant identified no barriers that prevented him from contacting the Respondent to discuss the costs in the SOA with sights on “mitigation” or understanding the itemized details, or the process to appeal an SOA. The supporting invoice to the SOA that the Appellant was served itemizes the costs incurred by the Respondent and is in no way vague or unclear.
18The Appellant did not provide evidence or details as to how the removal of the animals affected his understanding of the SOA and the appeal of it. The removal and SOA are related only in that they concern the same animals; one does not affect the other with respect the time to file an appeal.
19I am not persuaded by the Appellant’s submissions that the time between the removal of his animals and issuance of the SOA prevented him from understanding the costs in the SOA and that it interfered with his ability to appeal the SOA within the prescribed timeframe.
20On these arguments from the Appellant, I find the Board made no error in law in calculating the time to appeal the SOA and did not violate the rules of procedural fairness.
Whether the ACRB can consider reasons for delay
21The Appellant may believe the Board ought to have authority to accept late appeals; however, he did not cite any authority to support that belief. There is no legal authority for the Board to extend the timelines set out in the PAWS Act and Regulation.
22The Board explained in its Dismissal Order that the appeal was dismissed because the appeal because the statutory requirements for bringing an appeal had not been met. The Board does not accept late appeals because it does not have the jurisdiction to do so and therefore could not “consider” the Appellant’s reasons for late filing. Per s. 3 of the Regulation, appeals must be made within 10 business days of the Appellant being served with the SOA. The appeal was not filed within 10 business days and was, therefore, late which the Appellant acknowledges in his NOID submissions. The Board dismissed the appeal on that basis.
23On whether the Board can consider reasons for a delay in filing an appeal of an SOA, the Board has no legal authority or jurisdiction to extend timelines for late appeals and therefore could not reach a different decision notwithstanding the Appellant’s other reasons including that the Board ought to have discretion. I find that the Board did not act outside its jurisdiction and there was no error in law.
Whether the Appellant’s issues were sufficiently addressed by the Dismissal Order
24In his request for reconsideration the Appellant referenced case law and a past Board decision involving ability to pay (CAWI v Ishankova, 2023 ONSC 1284) and consideration and reasons for delay (Bell Canada v Canada (CRTC) 1989 CanLII 67 (SCC), [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1722 at para 24).
25The Board is not bound by past Board decisions, and the Appellant did not point to or explain how either of the referenced cases relate to his appeal. In Bell Canada v Canada the principal issue revolves around rate increases, and in CAWI v Ishankova, the issue regarding the Board considering an appellant’s ability to pay was found not to be unreasonable. The Appellant referenced the same case in his NOID submission but made no argument or connection to an ability or inability to pay.
26I find the cited cases have no relevance in this matter and were therefore not given any weight in this decision.
27The Dismissal Order addressed the relevant reasons for the dismissal which are related to the late filing of an SOA appeal. In his reasons for appeal the Appellant also included that there was no basis of the removal of the animals, and that there was no proper basis for not returning the animals. These reasons are not addressed in the Dismissal Order because they are not relevant to the SOA appeal or the statutory requirements affecting it.
28The grounds for reconsideration are set out in the Rules and reflect the exceptional circumstances when the Board may revisit its decision. A reconsideration is not an opportunity for the Appellant to re-argue or re-state their position.
29Having considered the parties’ submissions, I find that the Appellant has not satisfied either of the reconsideration criteria set out in Rule 18.2(a) and 18.2(b). As the Appellant has not met any criteria for granting reconsideration that he relies on, I find the appropriate outcome of the Appellant’s reconsideration request is to dismiss it.
CONCLUSION
30For the reasons noted above, pursuant to Rule 18.4(a), the Appellant’s request for reconsideration is dismissed.
Peter Simmons Vice Chair Tribunals Ontario
Released: June 11, 2026