Alisa Chaplick

The appellant appealed a Notice of Removal of his dog by Animal Welfare Services.

Following the removal, the appellant was served with a Statement of Account for veterinary care costs, which he neither paid nor appealed within the statutory deadlines.

Consequently, the dog was forfeited to the Crown by operation of the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act.

The respondent brought a motion to dismiss the appeal.

The Board held that it lacked jurisdiction to return a forfeited animal, rendering the appeal moot.

Applying the Borowski test, the Board declined to exercise its discretion to hear the moot appeal, noting the lack of an adversarial context and the need for judicial economy.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Non-Compliance and applied to revoke an Order issued under the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act regarding the care of her animals.

Prior to the conclusion of the hearing, Animal Welfare Services revoked the Order.

The respondent moved to dismiss the proceedings for mootness.

Applying the Borowski test, the Board found the matters were moot because the revocation eliminated any live controversy and left the Board without a statutory remedy to grant.

The Board declined to exercise its discretion to hear the moot matters, citing judicial economy and its limited statutory jurisdiction.

The appellant's dog was removed by Animal Welfare Services for non-compliance with an order to seek veterinary care.

The appellant paid the first statement of account but failed to pay or appeal a second statement of account, resulting in the dog's automatic forfeiture to the Crown.

The Board dismissed the appellant's application for the return of the dog and the appeal of the decision to keep the dog in care, finding it lacked jurisdiction due to the forfeiture.

However, the Board heard the appeal of the first statement of account, finding it was not moot, and confirmed the account in full, accepting expert evidence that the veterinary costs were reasonable and necessary.

The appellant appealed an order issued by Animal Welfare Services requiring her to take various actions to relieve the distress of her animals, including dogs and a cat.

The inspector had found the animals living in unsanitary conditions with inadequate shelter, food, and water.

The Animal Care Review Board confirmed the order, finding that there were reasonable grounds to believe the animals were in distress and that the actions required by the order were necessary to relieve that distress.

The appellant appealed the removal of his dog by Animal Welfare Services, a Statement of Account for $1,133.04, and applied for the dog's return.

The dog was removed after video evidence surfaced showing the appellant physically abusing and threatening to kill the dog on a livestream.

The Animal Care Review Board found that the dog was in distress and that removal was necessary to alleviate it.

The Board confirmed the Statement of Account as reasonable and necessary costs of care.

The application for return was dismissed because the conditions causing the distress had not ceased to exist, and the Board lacked jurisdiction to order the dog returned to the appellant's family members in another province.

The appellants appealed an order issued by an Animal Welfare Service inspector requiring them to have their dog examined by a veterinarian.

Before the hearing, the dog was removed from the appellants' care and the order was revoked.

The respondent brought a motion to dismiss the appeal for mootness.

The Animal Care Review Board granted the motion, finding that since the order had been revoked, there was no longer an issue to decide and no remedy the Board could provide.

The applicant's dog was removed by Animal Welfare Services and a statement of account for veterinary care was issued.

The applicant failed to appeal or pay the statement of account within the statutory deadlines, resulting in the automatic forfeiture of the dog to the Crown under s. 35(4) of the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, 2019.

The respondent brought a motion to dismiss the applicant's application for the return of the dog on the basis of mootness.

The Animal Care Review Board granted the motion, finding that it lacked jurisdiction to order the return of the dog due to the forfeiture, and declined to exercise its discretion to hear the moot application.

The appellant appealed a Statement of Account (SOA) in the amount of $91,068.22 issued by Animal Welfare Services for the costs of boarding and veterinary care for 40 sheep and 5 lambs removed from her care.

The appellant did not dispute the reasonableness of the costs but argued for a reduction or revocation based on financial hardship.

The Animal Care Review Board found the costs were reasonable and supported by invoices.

The Board declined to reduce or revoke the SOA, noting the appellant failed to provide any documentary evidence of financial hardship.

The SOA was confirmed in full.

The appellant appealed a Statement of Account issued by Animal Welfare Services for veterinary and boarding costs incurred after his cat was removed due to non-compliance with an animal welfare order.

The adjudicator found that the costs were reasonable and necessary to relieve the animal's distress.

However, based on evidence of the appellant's acquired brain injury and extremely low income, the adjudicator varied the Statement of Account, reducing the amount owed by 90 percent due to financial hardship.

The appellants appealed an order issued under s. 30(1) of the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, 2019, which accompanied the return of their horse.

The appellants argued the horse was not in distress at the time of return because the boarding facility had been approved by Animal Welfare Services.

The Board confirmed the order, finding the inspector had reasonable grounds to believe the horse would be returned to a state of distress based on the appellants' history of poor operational and financial planning, as well as ongoing credibility concerns.

The Board held that returning an animal with an order is justified when there are reasonable grounds to believe distress would reappear upon return.

The Chief Animal Welfare Inspector brought a motion to dismiss the appellant's appeal of a decision to keep 72 cats and 1 dog in its care.

The respondent argued the appeal was moot because 65 cats and 1 dog had been forfeited to the Crown after the appellant failed to pay or appeal a Statement of Account within the statutory timeframes.

The Animal Care Review Board granted the motion, finding it lacked jurisdiction to order the return of the forfeited animals.

The appeal was allowed to proceed only with respect to 7 kittens born in care, which were not subject to the Statement of Account and had not been forfeited.

The appellant, a tenant operating a licensed bar, appealed a Fire Marshal's Review Decision confirming an Inspection Order that required the removal of a combustible cotton batten product from the ceiling of the bar's main means of egress.

The appellant argued that applying fire-retardant spray and a plexiglass cover would be sufficient.

The Fire Safety Commission found that the product was a fire hazard and that the appellant failed to prove the fire-retardant spray met the required Fire Code standards.

The Commission confirmed the order to remove the product but extended the compliance date.

The appellants appealed an order issued by Animal Welfare Services requiring them to take their dog, Kylo, to a veterinarian and provide documentation.

The appellants sought revocation of the order on the basis that the dog had gone missing while hunting coyotes in Alberta and was presumed dead.

The respondent agreed to revoke the order as it related to the dog, given that the dog was either deceased or no longer in the appellants' custody.

The Board revoked the order.

The appellant's dog was removed by Animal Welfare Services and a statement of account was issued.

The appellant failed to appeal or pay the statement of account within the required time, resulting in the dog's automatic forfeiture to the Crown under the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act.

The Chief Animal Welfare Inspector brought a motion to dismiss the appellant's appeals of the removal and decision to keep the animal, arguing the matters were moot.

The Animal Care Review Board granted the motion, finding it has no jurisdiction to order the return of an animal once forfeited to the Crown, and declined to exercise its discretion to hear the moot appeals.

The appellant's 33 Boston Terriers were removed by an inspector for non-compliance with a previous order.

The appellant filed an appeal and an Application for Return with the Animal Care Review Board.

Subsequently, the appellant filed a motion seeking the return of the dogs.

The Board denied the motion, finding it redundant because the Application for Return was the appropriate avenue to address the matter.

The respondents, a professional engineer and her consulting firm, faced discipline for providing deficient structural drawings for a patio that failed to comply with the Ontario Building Code, failing to maintain professional liability insurance, and failing to cooperate with the Association's investigation.

The parties submitted an Agreed Statement of Facts and a Joint Submission on Penalty.

The Discipline Committee accepted the joint submission, finding the respondents guilty of professional misconduct.

The penalty included a permanent reprimand, practice restrictions requiring direct supervision by another engineer, and practice inspections.

The appellant appealed a Statement of Account for veterinary and boarding costs incurred after her dog was removed by Animal Welfare Services.

The appellant did not dispute the costs but sought a reduction based on financial hardship.

The Animal Care Review Board found the expenses were reasonable and necessary.

However, considering the appellant's limited financial means as a 19-year-old mother of two, the Board varied the Statement of Account, reducing the amount owing by 50 percent to balance accountability with the appellant's ability to pay.

The respondent property owner filed a request for reconsideration of a Fire Safety Commission decision that ordered compliance with Fire Code requirements for a second basement exit and a fire separation for an exit stair in a rooming house.

The respondent argued the Commission made incorrect findings and sought to introduce new evidence regarding his plans to demolish the building.

The Commission dismissed the request, finding that the respondent failed to meet the criteria for reconsideration under Rule 18.2.

The alleged incorrect findings were not errors of law or fact, and the new evidence either could have been obtained previously or would not have changed the outcome.

The appellant appealed a compliance order, a notice of decision to keep animals, a statement of account, and applied for the return of animals under the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act.

The compliance order and statement of account appeals were dismissed on preliminary motions with the appellant's consent due to late filing and revocation, respectively.

The appellant withdrew the remaining appeals after two and a half days of testimony.

All files were closed.

The appellant appealed a Fire Marshal Review Decision confirming an Inspection Order for fire code violations at a rooming house.

The appellant did not dispute the violations but sought an extension of time to comply because he intended to demolish the building.

The Fire Safety Commission confirmed the order but granted a short extension of time for compliance, providing alternative options to reduce occupancy or demolish the building within the amended timeframes.