Ashley Deathe

The appellant requested a reconsideration of a decision dismissing her appeals regarding the removal of her dog.

The appeals were originally dismissed without a hearing because they were filed past the 10-day statutory deadline and the appellant did not respond to a Notice of Intention to Dismiss.

On reconsideration, the appellant provided new information about her release from incarceration, but the Board found this information could have been provided previously.

The request for reconsideration was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector to keep her dog in care and a statement of account for veterinary and boarding costs.

The dog had been removed after a veterinarian reported severe lacerations likely caused by the appellant's improper at-home bandaging.

The Animal Care Review Board found that while the appellant exercised poor judgment in treating the dog at home and delaying veterinary care, there was insufficient evidence that the dog would be placed in distress if returned, as the injuries were accidental and the appellant ultimately sought care.

The Board ordered the dog returned and varied the statement of account from $10,008.57 to $9,567.87, deducting unnecessary boarding costs.

The appellant appealed a Statement of Account (SOA) issued by the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector for $10,435.34, covering the costs of care, boarding, and veterinary services for four horses removed from her property.

The Board first determined that the SOA was validly issued under s. 35(1) of the PAWS Act, finding that liability attaches to the person who was the owner or custodian at the time the costs were incurred, even if the animals were later forfeited or euthanized.

The Board confirmed the SOA in full, preferring the evidence of the respondent's veterinarians regarding the necessity and reasonableness of the care provided.

The appellant's request for costs was dismissed.

The Chief Animal Welfare Inspector brought a motion to dismiss the appellant's appeal of a statement of account and application for the return of 86 cats.

The Board found the statement of account appeal was moot because the statement had been revoked, and declined to exercise its discretion to hear it.

The Board also found it lacked jurisdiction to order the return of the cats because they had already been forfeited to the Crown due to the appellant's failure to pay previous statements of account.

The motion was granted and the proceedings were dismissed.

The appellant requested a reconsideration of a previous Animal Care Review Board decision that reduced a Statement of Account for the boarding of 36 seized dogs.

The appellant argued the Board violated procedural fairness by refusing to issue a summons and made errors of law and fact regarding a purported duty of care, the sale of the dogs, and the reasonableness of boarding costs.

The Board dismissed the request, finding no violation of procedural fairness and concluding that the appellant was attempting to reargue the appeal rather than demonstrating any errors of fact or law.

The Hamilton Fire Department applied to the Fire Safety Commission for authorization to complete work previously ordered against a tenant to remove combustible materials and clear pathways in her apartment.

The Commission dismissed the application, finding insufficient evidence that the tenant had not complied or was unlikely to comply with the order, as the inspector's evidence of non-compliance was based on an inspection conducted more than a year prior to the hearing.

The appellant appealed a Statement of Account totaling $166,937.62 for veterinary and boarding costs incurred after 34 dogs were removed from her care by Animal Welfare Services.

The appellant argued that the veterinary care was unnecessary, the boarding facilities were sub-standard, and the respondent unreasonably prevented the sale of the dogs.

The Animal Care Review Board found that the boarding costs were reasonable and that the respondent did not prevent the sale of the dogs.

However, the Board reduced the veterinary costs by $2,853.05 for duplicative vaccinations and $4,095.90 for an un-itemized mobile clinic fee.

The Statement of Account was varied to $159,988.67.

The appellant appealed the removal of 41 cats from her apartment, the decision to keep them in care, and a statement of account for their care.

The appellant failed to attend the hearing, and the Board proceeded in her absence.

The Board found that the warrantless entry was justified due to critical distress, as the cats were living in unsanitary conditions without food or water while the appellant was in police custody.

The Board declined to return the animals, finding they would be at risk of distress, and confirmed the statement of account for $23,969.95.

The appellant appealed the removal of 41 cats from her apartment, the decision to keep them in care, and a statement of account for their care.

The appellant failed to attend the hearing and her request for an adjournment was denied.

The Animal Care Review Board found that the animal welfare inspector lawfully entered the apartment under the critical distress provisions of the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, 2019, as the cats were living in unsanitary conditions without food or water.

The Board declined to order the return of the cats, finding they would be at risk of distress, and confirmed the statement of account for $23,969.95.

The appellant appealed the removal and decision to keep in care of 63 animals from his property by Animal Welfare Services.

The animals were removed after multiple inspections revealed ongoing non-compliance with orders regarding access to food, water, adequate bedding, and safe enclosures.

The Animal Care Review Board found that the animals were in distress at the time of removal and that the respondent had reasonable grounds to believe they would be placed back in distress if returned.

The appeal was dismissed and the Board declined to order the return of the animals.

The appellant pet store appealed a removal order, a decision to keep in care, and three statements of account issued by the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector regarding an agama, two leopard geckos, and two common rats.

The Animal Care Review Board found that the agama was in distress and its removal was necessary due to the appellant's failure to obtain ordered veterinary care.

However, the Board found the decision to keep the leopard geckos in care was unreasonable, as their required medical treatment did not necessitate close monitoring outside business hours.

The statements of account for the agama and rats were confirmed, while the account for the geckos was varied to remove boarding costs.

The respondent Chief Animal Welfare Inspector brought a motion to dismiss three appeals filed by the appellant pet shop owner regarding animal removal and care orders.

The respondent argued the appeals were filed after the five-day statutory deadline under section 38 of the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act.

The Animal Care Review Board granted the motion and dismissed the appeals, finding it has no statutory jurisdiction or discretion to extend the timeline for filing appeals or to accept incomplete notices of appeal.

The Chief Animal Welfare Inspector requested a reconsideration of a Board decision that ordered the return of the appellant's cats.

The animals had since been forfeited to the Crown due to the appellant's failure to pay a subsequent Statement of Account, rendering the return issue moot.

The Board exercised its discretion to hear the moot request and found that the original panel breached procedural fairness by considering the lawfulness of a critical distress entry without giving the Inspector notice or an opportunity to lead evidence.

The Board also found an error of law, as the animals were ordered returned without evidence that the conditions causing distress had ceased.

The reconsideration was granted, the order returning the animals was struck, and the appellant's request for costs was denied.

The appellant appealed a statement of account totaling $7,587.16 issued by Animal Welfare Services for veterinary and boarding costs related to a cat in his daughter's care.

The cat was taken to an emergency clinic where the veterinarian recommended expensive treatment or euthanasia.

When the daughter could not afford treatment and was refused permission to take the cat home, the cat was treated and later boarded by AWS.

The Animal Care Review Board found that only the initial emergency assessment costs of $1,186.16 were reasonable and necessary, as the subsequent treatment and boarding were pursued despite the daughter's inability to pay and the initial option of humane euthanasia.

The statement of account was varied accordingly.

The appellant appealed an Inspection Order issued by the Hamilton Fire Department requiring her to remove excessive combustible materials and clear pathways in her apartment to ensure fire safety.

The Fire Marshal referred the matter directly to the Fire Safety Commission.

The Commission found that the quantity and location of combustible materials in the apartment posed a significant fire safety risk, endangering the occupant, neighbours, and first responders.

The Commission confirmed the Inspection Order but amended the compliance date to allow the appellant 30 days to complete the required actions.

The appellants appealed an Inspection Order issued by the Oshawa Fire Services requiring Fire Code compliance for their multi-unit residential building, specifically regarding exit stairways and fire separations.

The Fire Marshal referred the appeal directly to the Fire Safety Commission.

The Commission found that the appellants no longer disputed the violations and were taking steps to comply.

The Commission confirmed the Inspection Order but, at the respondent's request, extended the compliance date to 90 days from the release of the decision.