Mark Sraga

The Applicant fire service applied under s. 33 of the Fire Protection and Prevention Act, 1997 for authorization to remove excessive items from the respondent's home to bring it into compliance with an inspection order.

The Fire Safety Commission declined to authorize the work, finding the applicant failed to prove the respondent was unlikely to comply or that the current conditions posed a serious and immediate fire hazard.

Exercising its discretion under s. 33(5), the Commission rescinded the requirement for 3-foot egress routes and amended the storage height and clearance requirements to target specific fire safety hazards, such as smoke alarm operation and proximity to ignition sources.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Removal issued by Animal Welfare Services regarding his four dogs.

The dogs were removed after video evidence showed the appellant physically abusing them in an elevator and hallway.

Relying on expert veterinary and behavioural evidence, the Animal Care Review Board found that the dogs were in physical and psychological distress.

The Board concluded that the removal was necessary to relieve the dogs' distress and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Removal, a Decision to Keep in Care, and a Statement of Account issued by Animal Welfare Services regarding her eight dogs.

The animals were removed following an inspection that alleged unsanitary conditions, lack of water, and insufficient space.

The Animal Care Review Board found that the dogs were not in distress at the time of removal, noting evidence that they were provided with adequate water, space, and care.

The Board also found no reasonable grounds to keep the dogs in care, relying on expert veterinary testimony that any medical issues could have been addressed through orders rather than removal.

The Board ordered the dogs returned to the appellant and revoked the $13,934.44 Statement of Account.

The appellant appealed a Decision to Keep in Care issued by the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector regarding his dog, who was removed due to severe chronic ear infections.

The Board found that the dog required specialized surgical treatment that the appellant had failed to provide over several years.

The Board concluded that it was necessary to keep the dog in care to relieve his distress and that returning the dog to the appellant would place him back in distress, given the appellant's inability to provide or afford the necessary ongoing veterinary care.

The appeal was dismissed.

Animal Welfare Services removed three horses from the appellant's care and issued a Decision to Keep (DTK) and a Statement of Account (SOA).

The appellant filed a notice of appeal but failed to include the required grounds or remedy for the SOA, later confirming she did not intend to appeal the costs.

Because the SOA was neither properly appealed nor paid within the statutory timeframe, the horses were automatically forfeited to the Crown under the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act.

The Chief Animal Welfare Inspector brought a motion to dismiss the appeals.

The Animal Care Review Board granted the motion, finding the SOA appeal invalid and the DTK appeal moot due to the statutory forfeiture, which eliminated the Board's jurisdiction to order the horses' return.

The appellant appealed two Statements of Account issued by Animal Welfare Services for the costs of boarding, veterinary care, and animal care for cats and dogs removed from her care.

The appellant did not attend the hearing.

The Board found that the costs in the first Statement of Account were reasonable, except for costs incurred after the animals were forfeited to the Crown and an unexplained locksmith invoice, reducing the amount by $2,550.98.

The Board confirmed the second Statement of Account in full, ordering the appellant to pay a total of $128,776.44.

The appellant appealed a Statement of Account (SOA) issued by Animal Welfare Services for $2,402.88, representing veterinary and boarding costs for a dog removed due to non-compliance with an order to provide veterinary care.

The appellant did not dispute the necessity of the care but sought to have the SOA revoked or reduced due to an inability to pay.

The Animal Care Review Board found that the costs incurred were actual and reasonable.

The Board further held that the appellant failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove financial hardship on a balance of probabilities.

The appeal was dismissed and the SOA was confirmed.

The appellant appealed a Statement of Account issued by Animal Welfare Services for veterinary, transportation, and boarding costs related to the removal of 22 dogs from her residence.

The Board found the boarding costs reasonable and confirmed them.

However, the Board varied the veterinary and transportation costs, finding it unreasonable to charge the appellant for a medical condition that developed after the dogs were removed from her care.

The appellant's claim of financial hardship was dismissed for lack of evidence.

The Statement of Account was varied from $38,779.58 to $37,621.90.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Removal concerning his dog.

The respondent moved to dismiss the appeal on the basis that the dog had been automatically forfeited to the Crown due to the appellant's failure to pay or appeal a statement of account within the statutory deadlines.

The Animal Care Review Board granted the motion and dismissed the appeal, finding that it lacked jurisdiction to return an animal once it has been statutorily forfeited, rendering the appeal moot.

The applicants sought the return of two dogs and six cats that were removed by Animal Welfare Services due to non-compliance with an order regarding parasitic infections and unsanitary living conditions.

The Animal Care Review Board denied the application, finding that the applicants failed to demonstrate that the conditions causing the animals to be in distress had ceased to exist.

The Board noted the applicants' history of non-compliance, reliance on non-medical treatments, and uncertain living arrangements following a recent move to Saskatchewan.

The appellant appealed a Decision to Keep in care (DTK) issued by the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector regarding 35 dogs removed from his property.

The Animal Care Review Board found that the dogs were living in unsanitary, hazardous conditions and suffering from untreated medical issues, including chronic eye injuries and parasite infections.

Relying on expert veterinary evidence and the appellant's history of non-compliance with previous orders, the Board concluded it was necessary to keep the dogs in care to relieve their distress and that returning them would place them in further distress.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a Statement of Account issued by the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector for veterinary and boarding costs related to the removal of his dog.

The Board found that while the dog was in distress and removal was justified, the respondent failed to provide sufficient evidence to substantiate the veterinary costs and the full duration of the boarding costs.

The Statement of Account was varied, reducing veterinary costs to zero and boarding costs to $405.00.

The Appellant appealed a Statement of Account (SOA) in the amount of $40,302.09 issued by the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector for veterinary and boarding costs related to the removal of 33 dogs.

The Animal Care Review Board found that the Respondent failed to meet its evidentiary burden to prove the veterinary costs were actual and reasonable, as the supporting invoices were heavily redacted, lacked explanation, and appeared to contain duplicate charges.

The Board reduced the veterinary costs from $31,347.71 to zero.

The Board also reduced the boarding costs from $8,954.38 to $5,515.80 due to inconsistencies and calculation errors in one of the invoices.

The Appellant was ordered to pay the varied amount of $5,515.80.

The applicant applied to the Animal Care Review Board for the return of 33 Boston Terriers removed by Animal Welfare Services due to distress.

The respondent provided extensive veterinary evidence demonstrating the dogs were kept in unsanitary conditions with high ammonia levels and suffered from untreated medical issues, including severe ocular disease and wounds from fighting.

The applicant failed to provide any submissions or evidence to show the conditions causing distress had ceased.

The Board dismissed the application, finding that returning the dogs would place them in distress.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Removal issued by Animal Welfare Services for 33 Boston Terriers.

The dogs were removed after the appellant failed to comply with previous orders requiring veterinary care and improvements to unsanitary and hazardous living conditions.

The Animal Care Review Board found that the dogs were in distress due to a lack of food, water, sanitary living conditions, and necessary veterinary care.

The Board dismissed the appeal, concluding that the removal was necessary to alleviate the dogs' distress.

The appellant appealed the removal of 10 exotic animals from her property by Animal Welfare Services, as well as the decision to retain them and two statements of account for their care.

The Animal Care Review Board found that the animals were in distress due to unsanitary conditions, lack of appropriate food and water, and inadequate veterinary care.

The Board dismissed the appeal, denied the application for the return of the animals, and confirmed the statements of account totalling $12,241.39, finding the costs reasonable and necessary.

The Chief Animal Welfare Inspector brought a motion to permit evidence admitted in an appeal of a Notice of Removal to be treated as admitted in a subsequent Application for Return proceeding involving the same 33 dogs.

The appellant consented to the motion.

The Animal Care Review Board granted the motion pursuant to section 15.1 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, finding it appropriate given the proceedings involved the same animals and arose out of the same circumstances.

The appellant appealed a decision by Animal Welfare Services to remove his dog from his care.

The dog was removed after inspectors received complaints and audio recordings of the appellant yelling at, threatening, and physically striking the dog or its crate.

An expert veterinarian opined that the appellant's loud, angry outbursts and physical actions caused the dog psychological and physical distress.

The Animal Care Review Board found that the dog was in distress due to both physical and psychological abuse, and upheld the removal order.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Removal issued by Animal Welfare Services after her dog was removed due to allegations of physical and psychological abuse.

The Animal Care Review Board found that the dog was in distress at the time of removal, supported by eyewitness accounts of the appellant striking the dog and expert veterinary testimony regarding the psychological impacts of caregiver abuse.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellants appealed a Statement of Account issued by Animal Welfare Services for the costs of boarding and veterinary care for their removed animals.

The appellants argued the charges were excessive, the care was sub-optimal, and they lacked the ability to pay.

The Animal Care Review Board confirmed the Statement of Account in the amount of $17,086.36, finding that the care provided was necessary, the boarding rates and veterinary fees were reasonable and consistent with industry guidelines, and the appellants failed to provide sufficient documentary evidence to prove an inability to pay.