Bevan v. Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Ont.), (2006) 210 O.A.C. 1 (CA)

• Judge: Weiler, Laskin and Rosenberg, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Ontario)
• Case Date: January 09, 2006
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: (2006), 210 O.A.C. 1 (CA)

Bevan v. SPCA (2006), 210 O.A.C. 1 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2006] O.A.C. TBEd. AP.014

Roy Bevan (appellant/respondent) v. Ontario Society for The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (respondent/the moving party)

(M33114; C43937)

Indexed As: Bevan v. Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Ont.)

Ontario Court of Appeal

Weiler, Laskin and Rosenberg, JJ.A.

April 4, 2006.

Summary:

The Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals made a compliance order against Bevan. The Animal Care Review Board upheld the order in part, but also required the Society to pay the costs of care of Bevan's horses and required that Bevan and the Society each bear half of the costs for care of his sheep. The Board also ordered that the animals be returned to Bevan on certain conditions. Bevan and the Society appealed that decision under s. 18 of the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty Act.

The Ontario Superior Court dismissed Bevan's appeal and allowed the Society's appeal. Bevan appealed the order. The Society moved to quash the appeal on the basis that there was no right of appeal to this court and, alternatively, since the appeal was therefore frivolous and vexatious, for security for costs.

The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed the motion.

Animals - Topic 3055

Cruelty to animals - Protected animals - Appeals or judicial review - An appeal was brought under s. 18 of the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act from a decision of the Animal Care Review Board - The owner brought a further appeal - The Society moved to quash the appeal, submitting that since s. 18(4) provided that the decision of the judge was "final", there was no right of appeal and an appellant had to proceed by way of judicial review - The Ontario Court of Appeal rejected the submission - As the term was used in s. 18(4) of the Act, "final" demonstrated that the Superior Court Judge's order could be appealed as a final order under the Courts of Justice Act to the Court of Appeal or the Divisional Court, as the case might be - Much clearer language would be required to oust the broad jurisdiction conferred by the Courts of Justice Act.

Practice - Topic 8862

Appeals - Quashing or dismissal of appeals - Grounds for - [See Animals - Topic 3055 ].

Words and Phrases

Final - The Ontario Court of Appeal discussed the meaning of this word as found in s. 18(4) of the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O-36 - See paragraphs 1 to 10.

Cases Noticed:

Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development v. Ranville, [1982] 2 S.C.R. 518; 44 N.R. 616, refd to. [para. 8].

Sheets v. Ontario Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (1984), 5 O.A.C. 309 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 9].

Statutes Noticed:

Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O-36, sect. 18(4) [para. 5].

Counsel:

Kenneth C. Hill, for the respondent/moving party;

Donald R. Good, for the appellant.

This motion was heard on January 9, 2006, by Weiler, Laskin and Rosenberg, JJ.A., of the Ontario Court of Appeal. Rosenberg, J.A., released the following decision for the court on April 4, 2006.