Edgar-André Montigny

The appellant requested a reconsideration of two Animal Care Review Board decisions that upheld the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector's decision to keep her animals in care and confirmed the Statement of Account.

The appellant argued that the Board violated procedural fairness, made errors of fact and law, heard false evidence, and failed to consider new evidence regarding her disability and alternative boarding facilities.

The Board dismissed the request, finding no breach of procedural fairness, no errors of fact or law, and that the proposed new evidence did not meet the test for admission as it could have been obtained prior to the original hearings.

The appellant requested a reconsideration of an Animal Care Review Board decision that confirmed a Statement of Account for $4,696.17 for necessaries provided to his seized animals.

The appellant argued the Board erred in law and fact regarding the surrender of the animals, the respondent's duty to mitigate costs, the effect of a Decision to Keep in Care, and a witness's alleged conflict of interest and perjury.

The Board dismissed the request for reconsideration, finding that the appellant failed to establish any grounds under Rule 18.2 of the Common Rules of Practice and Procedure.

The Board held that the PAWS Act does not impose a duty to mitigate costs, ownership does not transfer upon a Decision to Keep in Care, and the conflict of interest allegations were either fully canvassed at the hearing or based on evidence that could have been obtained earlier.

The appellant appealed a Statement of Account (SOA) issued by Animal Welfare Services for the costs of providing necessaries to 14 horses removed from her property.

The appellant argued that the transportation, boarding, veterinary, and farrier charges were excessive and unnecessary.

The Animal Care Review Board reviewed the evidence, including affidavits from the regional supervisor and the attending veterinarian, and found the charges to be reasonable and necessary to relieve the animals' distress.

The Board confirmed the revised SOA in the amount of $25,126.23.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector to keep 14 horses in care after they were removed from her property.

The horses were seized following multiple compliance orders regarding inadequate shelter and muddy paddock conditions.

The only barn on the property was subject to a municipal order prohibiting its use.

The Animal Care Review Board dismissed the appeal, finding that returning the horses would place them in distress due to the ongoing lack of viable shelter and failure to improve the ground conditions.