This is an unusual issue. Judicial reviews are commenced by a 'Notice of Judicial Review', very much like a 'Notice of Appeal' - not a Statement of Claim which is quite articulate re facts and legal grounds. This can give rise to a lack of detail regarding the JR grounds pled, so lenience with respect to the formal grounds allowed can be a live issue.
We [SS: the court] would add to this list a seventh issue which is implicit in the Applicants’ arguments respecting the Enforcement Decision:
7. Was the Board’s decision reasonable to order that most of the dogs not be returned to the Applicants pending their compliance with various conditions, without the Board having decided whether the removal and retention of the dogs was done in accordance with the Act?
The author has waived all copyright and related or neighboring rights to this Isthatlegal.ca webpage.
