Court File and Parties

Court of Appeal for Ontario Date: 2024-12-31 Docket: M55641 (COA-24-OM-0201) Before: Wilson J.A. (Motion Judge)

Between: Valerie Guillaume Moving Party

And: Chief Animal Welfare Inspector Responding Party

And: Animal Care Review Board Responding Party

Counsel: Valerie Guillaume, acting in person No one appearing for the responding parties

Heard: In Writing

Endorsement

[1] The moving party, Ms. Guillaume, brings this motion seeking to set aside the order of the Registrar of the Court of Appeal for Ontario dated November 15, 2024, dismissing her motion for leave to appeal the decision of the Divisional Court made June 3, 2024 for delay. The motion was served on the Attorney General of Canada and the Attorney General of Ontario, as Ms. Guillaume alleges a violation of her rights under s. 24(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. No responding materials were filed.

A. Background

[2] The moving party acts on her own behalf. She filed a voluminous motion record which was repetitive and difficult to comprehend. Nothing is hyperlinked, making it time consuming to locate the referenced documents. The materials indicate that she is seeking leave to appeal the Registrar’s dismissal order, but she included orders and decisions that did not pertain to this appeal. Ms. Guillaume makes allegations of bias against the members of the panel of the Divisional Court without providing any particulars. I will refer to the various orders and appeals later in these reasons.

[3] The events giving rise to this motion stem from the removal of 41 cats from the moving party’s apartment by the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector (the “Chief Inspector”) pursuant to s. 29 of the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, 2019, S.O. 2019, c. 13. The Chief Inspector decided to keep the cats in care and a statement of account was rendered to the moving party for the costs of care.

[4] Ms. Guillaume appealed the notice of removal, the placement of the cats in care, and the statement of account to the Animal Care Review Board (“ACRB”). On the date of the hearing, the moving party refused to participate and the hearing was adjourned. The moving party then provided notice of a constitutional question. The hearing was rescheduled for June 5 and 6, 2023. On the day of the hearing, after her request for an adjournment was denied, Ms. Guillaume left the hearing, which proceeded in her absence.

[5] In a decision dated August 4, 2023, the ACRB dismissed the appeals: Guillaume v. Chief Animal Welfare Inspector, 2023 ONACRB 52. The moving party did not request a reconsideration, but instead sought judicial review of the decision in the Divisional Court. She asserted that the steps taken by the Chief Inspector breached her rights under the Charter because they did not obtain a search warrant before entering her apartment. This judicial review decision is the subject of the moving party’s underlying motion for leave to appeal. She also sought to stay the order of the ACRB pending the outcome of her application for judicial review, which was dismissed by the order of Nishikawa J. on October 16, 2023: Guillaume v. Chief Animal Welfare Inspector, 2023 ONSC 5782.

[6] A three-judge panel of the Divisional Court heard the motion to set aside the stay decision and dismissed it in reasons released February 23, 2024, and corrected on February 28, 2024: Guillaume v. Ontario (Chief Animal Welfare Inspector), 2024 ONSC 1087. The moving party then sought leave to appeal from the decision of the Divisional Court to this court. She did not file an acceptable motion record and factum.

[7] Ms. Guillaume brought a motion to obtain an order extending the time to file the motion record and factum. Pepall J.A. granted this extension on August 28, 2024. The moving party was given 30 days from Pepall J.A.’s order to serve and file the motion record and factum. Ms. Guillaume did not comply. On October 9, 2024, the Registrar of the Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the motion for leave to appeal for delay. The moving party sought to set aside this order, which Gomery J.A. dismissed in Guillaume v. Ontario (Animal Care Review Board), 2024 ONCA 851 (“Guillaume (ONCA)”). The facts of that motion are strikingly similar to this one. Gomery J.A. dismissed the motion because she concluded that the “overall interests of justice do not favour setting aside the Registrar’s order dismissing the motion for leave to appeal”: Guillaume (ONCA), at para. 9. In her reasons, Gomery J.A. noted that Ms. Guillaume did not file an affidavit to support her motion, despite being put on notice that such inadequacy gives rise to proper grounds to dismiss a motion: Guillaume (ONCA), at paras. 14-15. Subsequently, Ms. Guillaume did not provide any reason for her failure to perfect the motion for leave to appeal since Pepall J.A.’s order on August 28, 2024: Guillaume (ONCA), at para. 16. Gomery J.A. concluded that she did not find any merit in the proposed appeal and she dismissed the motion: Guillaume (ONCA), at para. 17.

[8] In the instant case, in her motion record, the moving party included the decision of the Divisional Court dated June 3, 2024, which dismissed the judicial review application of the decision of the ACRB dated August 4, 2023: Guillaume v. Chief Animal Welfare Inspector, 2024 ONSC 2976 (“Guillaume (Div. Ct.)”). The moving party sought to appeal that decision to this court, filing a notice of motion on July 12, 2024. Once again, the moving party did not file an acceptable motion record and factum. On September 11, 2024, the moving party was delivered a notice of intention to dismiss the motion for delay if her materials were not properly filed on or before September 27, 2024. Ms. Guillaume did not file her materials before this deadline, thereby giving rise to the November 15, 2024 dismissal order by the Registrar. The moving party now seeks to set aside this dismissal order.

B. Analysis

[9] In order to succeed, the moving party must demonstrate that the justice of the case requires the court to make the order setting aside the dismissal for delay. Put differently, “The overriding consideration on a motion to set aside a dismissal order is the justice of the case”: Akagi v. Synergy Group (2000) Inc., 2014 ONCA 731, at para. 8. Analyzing the justice of the case entails considering the merits of the appeal: Akagi, at para. 8.

[10] A judge has the discretion to set aside or vary the decision of the Registrar dismissing a matter for delay. According to Philbert v. Graham, 2022 ONCA 488, at para. 7, the court must consider the following factors:

i. whether the appellant had an intention to appeal within the time for bringing an appeal; ii. the length of the delay and any explanation for the delay; iii. any prejudice to the respondent caused by the delay; and iv. the justice of the case.

[11] I recognize that the moving party had an intention to appeal within the time for bringing an appeal and maintained that intention. As well, the responding parties did not oppose this motion. These factors weigh in favour of setting aside the dismissal order. Nonetheless, there are significant factors that work against the moving party and must be considered.

[12] Here, the moving party has offered no explanation for her failure to file her materials by September 27, 2024. While there was no delay in bringing this motion after she received the Registrar’s order, Ms. Guillaume’s failure to provide materials in accordance with the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, despite receiving specific guidance from court staff, has not been explained.

[13] More importantly, the justice of the case requires this motion be dismissed. There is no merit to the motion for leave to appeal. The court must consider if the proposed appeal has any chance of success. The Divisional Court found that the ACRB’s decision was “transparent, intelligible and justified”: Guillaume (Div. Ct.), at para. 30. Before the panel of the Divisional Court, Ms. Guillaume challenged the ACRB’s decision to deny her adjournment request and proceed in her absence. The Divisional Court found that this was not procedurally unfair or unreasonable in the circumstances, and Ms. Guillaume did not show any basis to intervene with such a decision: Guillaume (Div. Ct.), at paras. 22-23. Moreover, Ms. Guillaume requested that the Divisional Court decide her Charter arguments, despite not making any such arguments at the ACRB hearing: Guillaume (Div. Ct.), at para. 21. Overall, the Divisional Court concluded that the ACRB’s decision was reasonable and did not justify intervention: Guillaume (Div. Ct.), at para. 30. As a result, Ms. Guillaume’s application was dismissed.

[14] The moving party has not demonstrated any error in the decision of the Divisional Court. This appeal is frivolous and lacks any merit. It is not in the interests of justice to set aside the dismissal order.

[15] The moving party has failed to articulate why she did not file acceptable materials with this court. She has not included any affidavit evidence and her notice of motion is simply argument and criticism of the actions of the inspectors, alleged bias of the various judges in the Divisional Court, and allegations of conspiracy between the staff members of this court. She asserts the dismissal order violates her rights under the Charter. There is no merit to these allegations.

[16] The motion is dismissed.

“D.A. Wilson J.A.”