Anxhela (Angela) Peco

The appellant appealed a Statement of Account issued by the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector for boarding, veterinary, and animal care costs related to her removed cats.

The appellant argued the costs were unreasonable, included errors, and that she lacked the financial means to pay.

The Animal Care Review Board found that the majority of the costs were actually incurred and reasonable, relying on expert veterinary evidence.

The Board deducted a cold storage fee and unsupported tax charges, but declined to reduce the account based on ability to pay, noting the appellant's history of animal removals and lack of insight.

The Statement of Account was varied to $18,300.35.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector to keep seven of his animals in care and applied for their return.

While the decision was pending, the appellant was released from custody and the animals were returned to him.

The Board found the appeal and application moot because the requested remedy had already been granted.

Applying the Borowski test, the Board declined to exercise its discretion to decide the moot matters, finding no remaining adversarial context and that it would be an inefficient use of resources.

The appeal and application were dismissed.

The appellant appealed a Statement of Account issued by the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector for $20,938.65 in boarding and veterinary costs related to one adult cat and six kittens.

The adult cat was removed from the appellant's property, and the kittens were born in care.

The Animal Care Review Board found that while the medical care and boarding were necessary and the rates were generally reasonable, the appellant should not be responsible for all costs.

Specifically, the Board deducted costs for the adult cat's medical conditions likely caused by the respondent leaving the cat behind during an initial removal, and for the kittens' upper respiratory infections acquired after two months at the boarding facility.

The Statement of Account was varied to $15,293.95.

The applicant brought a motion for an extension of time to appeal a Fire Marshal Review Order regarding a property inspection order.

The inspection order required the applicant to remove an obstruction to a means of egress over an easement.

The applicant filed the appeal two days late, citing absence from home, caregiving responsibilities, and late receipt of the order.

The Commission granted the extension, finding that the applicant demonstrated apparent grounds for the appeal based on a dispute over the legal right of way, and provided a reasonable explanation for the brief delay.

The appellants appealed a Statement of Account (SOA) for $29,694.95 issued by Animal Welfare Services for the removal, boarding, and veterinary care of 71 animals, and applied for the return of the 66 surviving animals.

The Animal Care Review Board found that most of the costs were actual and reasonable, supported by expert veterinary evidence, but deducted $8,325.00 in projected boarding costs that had not yet been incurred when the SOA was issued.

The Board varied the SOA to $21,369.95.

The Board dismissed the application for the return of the animals, finding the appellants failed to prove that the conditions causing the animals' distress had ceased to exist at their new property.

The appellant appealed a decision by Animal Welfare Services to keep her dog in care and a Statement of Account for veterinary and boarding costs.

The dog was seized after the appellant left a veterinary clinic without paying for emergency surgery due to financial constraints.

The Board found that it was not necessary to keep the dog in care to alleviate distress post-surgery, and there were no reasonable grounds to believe the dog would be placed in distress if returned.

The Board ordered the dog returned to the appellant and varied the Statement of Account from $4,064.28 to $3,305.01 by deducting duplicate charges, unproven medication costs, and boarding fees incurred after the dog should have been returned.

The appellant condominium corporation appealed a Fire Marshal Review Decision that confirmed an Inspection Order requiring the removal of recycling bins from a parking garage or the construction of a fire-separated storage room.

The appellant requested a 12-month extension to construct the storage room.

The Fire Safety Commission found that while the appellant had delayed taking substantive steps initially, it had recently engaged an engineer and begun the planning process.

Balancing the need for time to complete the tendering and construction process against the ongoing fire safety risk, the Commission granted a four-month extension of the compliance date.

The applicant sought the return of 110 cats removed from his property by Animal Welfare Services.

The Chief Animal Welfare Inspector brought a motion to dismiss the application as moot, arguing the cats had been forfeited to the Crown because the applicant failed to appeal or pay a $72,397.26 statement of account within the statutory deadlines.

The Animal Care Review Board found that the forfeiture extinguished the applicant's ownership rights, leaving the Board without jurisdiction to order the animals' return.

Applying the Borowski test, the Board declined to exercise its discretion to hear the moot application, finding no live controversy or special circumstances justifying the expenditure of resources.

The motion was granted and the application dismissed.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a motion decision that denied an extension of time to file an appeal.

The applicant argued that new evidence, including remedial work, correspondence, and a contractor quotation, justified reconsideration under Rule 18.2(d).

The Commission dismissed the request, finding that the evidence could have been obtained previously and did not meet the high threshold for reconsideration.

The applicant's alternative request for compliance directions was also denied, as the Commission's power to give directions under s. 26(3) of the FPPA is only available when an extension of time is granted.

The respondent brought a motion to dismiss the appellant's appeal regarding the removal of his dog.

The dog had been removed pursuant to the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, 2019, and a statement of account was issued for veterinary costs.

Because the appellant neither paid nor appealed the statement of account within the statutory timelines, the dog was automatically forfeited to the Crown.

The Animal Care Review Board granted the motion and dismissed the appeal, finding that it lacked jurisdiction to order the return of the dog since the appellant was no longer the legal owner.

The Chief Animal Welfare Inspector brought motions to dismiss the appellant's multiple appeals and applications for abuse of process, citing his refusal to consolidate matters, voluminous non-compliant filings, and reliance on artificial intelligence (ChatGPT) that generated false citations and veterinary opinions.

The Animal Care Review Board denied the motion to dismiss, finding that while the appellant's conduct was significantly non-compliant, it did not warrant the exceptional remedy of dismissal.

However, the Board granted the alternative relief in part, striking the appellant's non-compliant submissions from the record for the immediate hearings to prevent prejudice to the respondent.

The appellant appealed the removal of his dog and the subsequent decision to keep the dog in care by Animal Welfare Services.

The dog was removed due to a severe, untreated eye condition that a veterinarian advised required immediate care to alleviate distress.

The Board found that the dog was in distress and that removal was necessary.

The Board also upheld the decision to keep the dog in care, finding reasonable grounds to believe the dog would be placed in distress if returned, given the appellant's failure to recognize the dog's medical needs and the unsanitary living conditions.

The appellant appealed a Statement of Account (SOA) issued by Animal Welfare Services for boarding and veterinary costs related to two dogs removed from his care.

The Board found that the costs were actual, necessary, and reasonable.

However, based on the appellant's uncontested evidence of limited financial means, the Board varied the SOA, reducing the amount owed by 50 percent to $1,245.20.

The applicant sought the return of two dogs removed by Animal Welfare Services due to their thin body condition and untreated wounds.

The dogs were kept in care after the applicant failed to comply with an order requiring a veterinary examination.

The Animal Care Review Board dismissed the application, finding that the applicant had not demonstrated the ability to meet the dogs' ongoing veterinary and shelter needs, particularly given her current housing instability and financial constraints.

The appellant appealed a Statement of Account (SOA) issued by Animal Welfare Services for $1,536.80 in costs incurred to remove a broken halter from his horse.

The appellant argued the intervention was unnecessary and the costs excessive, and claimed an inability to pay.

The Animal Care Review Board found the horse was in distress and the costs for the emergency vendor services were reasonable.

The Board also found the appellant failed to establish a limited ability to pay, noting inconsistencies in his financial evidence.

The appeal was dismissed and the SOA was confirmed.

The Chief Animal Welfare Inspector removed 75 dogs from the applicant's property and subsequently issued a statement of account for their care.

The applicant failed to appeal or pay the statement of account within the statutory timelines, resulting in the dogs being forfeited to the Crown by operation of law.

The applicant then applied to the Animal Care Review Board for the return of the dogs.

The Board granted the Inspector's motion to dismiss the application, finding that it lacked jurisdiction to order the return of the animals because the applicant ceased to be their owner upon forfeiture.

The appellant hotel operator appealed a Fire Marshal's decision rejecting its Alternative Solution Proposal (ASP) under the Fire Code.

The appellant proposed using off-site supervisory staff available 24/7 instead of on-site staff.

The Fire Safety Commission first determined that the acceptable solution in Sentence 2.8.2.2.(2) of the Fire Code requires supervisory staff to be physically on site when the building is occupied.

The Commission then found that the appellant's ASP did not meet or exceed the minimum performance level intended by the acceptable solution, as it relied primarily on existing building features and did not adequately compensate for the absence of immediate on-site response.

The appeal was dismissed and the Fire Marshal's order was confirmed.

The appellant appealed a compliance order, the removal of 193 animals (including horses, cattle, sheep, emus, and birds), and a statement of account for $45,063.32 issued by Animal Welfare Services.

The Board found that the animals were in distress due to lack of proper food, water, and sanitary living conditions, and that removal was necessary to alleviate their distress.

The Board confirmed the compliance order, declined to order the return of the animals, and varied the statement of account to $43,684.44 after deducting certain transportation costs.

The applicant sought reconsideration of an order dismissing her appeal of a Statement of Account.

The appeal had been dismissed after the applicant failed to attend a case conference and missed the deadline to respond to a notice of intent to dismiss.

The Board dismissed the reconsideration request, finding it was filed outside the 21-day statutory timeframe.

The Board further held that even if timely, the request did not meet the criteria for reconsideration, as the Board had not acted outside its jurisdiction or violated procedural fairness by enforcing its procedural rules and timelines.

The appellant hotel operator brought a preliminary motion to determine the scope of its appeal before the Fire Safety Commission.

The appellant had submitted an alternative solution proposal after Toronto Fire Services rejected its initial fire safety plan, which allowed supervisory staff to be located off-site.

The appellant sought a ruling that the Commission had jurisdiction to determine whether its alternative solution proposal was actually an 'acceptable solution' under the Ontario Fire Code.

The Commission dismissed the motion, finding it lacked jurisdiction to review the fire official's original opinion on the acceptable solution.

The Commission held its authority under s. 26(6) of the Fire Protection and Prevention Act, 1997 was limited to assessing the sufficiency of the alternative solution proposal as an alternative to the acceptable solution.