Peter Simmons

The appellant's dog was removed by Animal Welfare Services and a Keep in Care Decision was issued, along with a Statement of Account.

The appellant appealed the Keep in Care Decision but failed to pay the Statement of Account within the prescribed time.

The respondent brought a motion to dismiss the appeal on the basis that the non-payment resulted in the statutory forfeiture of the dog to the Crown.

The Board granted the motion, finding that the forfeiture transferred ownership to the Crown, rendering the appeal moot as the Board no longer had the power to order the dog's return.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Removal, a Keep in Care Decision, and a Statement of Account issued by Animal Welfare Services regarding the removal of four cats from her home.

The Board found that the cats were in distress due to the appellant's failure to comply with previous compliance orders requiring her to repair her ceiling, provide a sanitary environment, and seek veterinary care.

The Board upheld the removal and the decision to keep the cats in care, finding reasonable grounds to believe they would be placed in distress if returned.

The Board also confirmed the Statement of Account for $17,172.50 for the costs of providing necessaries to the removed cats.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Removal issued by Animal Welfare Services (AWS) after 47 dogs were removed from his property.

AWS executed a search warrant and found the dogs living in unsanitary, poorly lit, and inadequately ventilated conditions with high ammonia levels.

A veterinarian certified that the dogs were in distress and required removal.

The Animal Care Review Board found that the dogs were in distress under the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act and that their removal was necessary to alleviate that distress.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed two Statements of Account (SOAs) issued by Animal Welfare Services for the costs of boarding and veterinary care for 43 cats removed from her home due to distress and non-compliance with previous orders.

The appellant argued the costs were unreasonable and unnecessary.

The Animal Care Review Board found that the respondent met its initial evidentiary burden to show the costs were incurred for necessaries to relieve the cats' distress and were reasonable.

The appellant failed to prove the SOAs should be varied or revoked.

The Board confirmed both SOAs, ordering the appellant to pay a total of $24,970.01.

The appellant appealed Notices of Removal, Decisions to Keep, and a Compliance Order issued by Animal Welfare Services regarding dozens of cats kept in her home.

The Board found that the removals were necessary to alleviate distress, as the home was unsanitary, past compliance orders were ignored, and a veterinarian certified the need for removal.

The Board also upheld the decision to keep the cats in care, finding reasonable grounds to believe they would return to distress if returned, and upheld the order requiring litter substrate for the remaining cats.

The appellant appealed a Statement of Account in the amount of $22,191.97 issued by Animal Welfare Services for the costs of providing necessaries to 40 cats removed from her home.

The appellant argued the costs were unreasonable and included cats that did not belong to her.

The Animal Care Review Board found that the respondent met its initial evidentiary burden to show the costs were reasonable and incurred for necessaries, while the appellant failed to provide persuasive evidence to vary or revoke the statement.

The Board confirmed the Statement of Account and ordered the appellant to pay the full amount.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector to keep his dog and a Statement of Account for $1,156.27 following the removal of his dog and cat.

The animals were removed due to concerns of distress, including inadequate care and inappropriate sexual touching by the appellant.

The Animal Care Review Board dismissed the appeal to return the dog, finding the appellant failed to demonstrate that the conditions causing distress had ceased to exist.

The Board also confirmed the Statement of Account, as the appellant did not provide evidence of an inability to pay.

The appellant appealed a compliance order issued by Animal Welfare Services regarding the care of several captive wildlife species at his facility.

The Board found that the animals were in distress because their enclosures were too small to allow for natural movement and exercise, and they lacked adequate enrichment.

The Board confirmed the compliance order but extended the deadline for compliance by 30 days to allow for the construction of outdoor enclosures.

The appellant requested a reconsideration of an Animal Care Review Board decision that confirmed the removal of his animals and several Statements of Account for their care.

The appellant argued the Board breached procedural fairness by failing to consider his evidence and case law, and made erroneous findings of fact.

The Board dismissed the request, finding it had considered the evidence and law but found them irrelevant or distinguishable, and that any factual errors would not have changed the outcome.

The appellant fire department appealed a Fire Marshal's Review Decision that rescinded an inspection order issued to the respondent building owner.

The inspection order required the installation of fire-rated doors, fire separations, and strobe alarms in a two-unit residential building.

The Fire Safety Commission amended the Review Decision, finding that 20-minute fire-rated doors (or solid wood alternatives) and 30-minute fire separations were necessary to protect shared means of escape.

However, the Commission confirmed the Review Decision's finding that strobe alarms were not required, as they exceeded the requirements of the Ontario Fire Code and Ontario Building Code.

The appellant tenant appealed a Fire Marshal Review Decision that ordered the removal of combustible materials from the basement of her residential building.

The appellant argued that the basement had ample space for storage and distinguished between 'storage' and 'accumulation'.

The Fire Safety Commission found that the basement was a service room containing a fuel-fired furnace, water heater, and electrical panel, and was not designed for the storage of combustible materials.

The Commission confirmed the Review Decision and amended the compliance date.

The Appellant appealed eight Notices of Decision to Keep an Animal in Care and seven Statements of Account issued by the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector after various exotic and domestic animals were removed from the Appellant's zoo.

The Animal Care Review Board found that the animals had been kept in conditions causing distress, including inadequate housing, lack of hoof care, and insufficient human interaction for primates.

The Board concluded that returning the animals would place them back in distress due to the Appellant's failure to demonstrate a proactive plan for adequate care.

The Board also confirmed the Statements of Account totaling $105,059.35, finding the costs for boarding and veterinary care to be reasonable and necessary.

The appellants appealed an Inspection Order issued by the Kitchener Fire Department under the Fire Protection and Prevention Act.

The order alleged that the appellants' nine-bedroom student rental property violated the Ontario Fire Code by creating a hazard not allowed for in the original design.

The Fire Safety Commission found that the Inspection Order failed to provide valid reasons related to fire safety or specific Fire Code violations, improperly relying instead on zoning and building code issues outside the Commission's jurisdiction.

The Commission rescinded the Inspection Order.

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 the removal of 21 horses and subsequent decisions to keep the horses and their newborn colts in the care of the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector, as well as three statements of account for the costs of their care.

The Animal Care Review Board found that the animals were properly removed due to distress caused by ongoing neglect, poor living conditions, and failure to comply with previous orders.

The Board determined the animals would likely be placed in distress if returned and ordered them kept in care.

The Board varied two statements of account to remove transportation costs, confirming the remainder, and ordered the appellants to pay $103,132.31 for the costs of care.

The appellants appealed two inspection orders issued by the Brockville Fire Department regarding a mixed-use condominium building.

The orders required the removal of door stops from fire separation doors and the removal of combustible furniture from the residential lobby and corridors.

The Fire Safety Commission upheld the order regarding the door stops, finding that they impermissibly wedge open and alter fire separations in violation of the Ontario Fire Code.

However, the Commission rescinded the order regarding the combustible furniture, finding that the furniture was placed in spaces specifically designed for it, which is permitted under the Code.