Susan Clarke

The Appellant appealed the decision of the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector to keep 9 birds removed from his property, appealed a Statement of Account for their care, and applied for their return.

The Animal Care Review Board found that the birds were kept in unsanitary conditions, lacked adequate space, and required veterinary care.

The Board dismissed the appeal of the decision to keep and the application for return, finding that returning the birds would place them in distress.

The Board varied the Statement of Account from $3,268.52 to $1,534.19, removing costs for injuries sustained during removal and adjusting for the Appellant's limited ability to pay.

The appellant appealed a Statement of Account issued by the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector for veterinary care costs incurred after her cat was removed to treat a urinary blockage.

The appellant argued the costs were excessive due to a torn urethra during surgery and claimed an inability to pay.

The Animal Care Review Board found the hospital rates were reasonable and the torn urethra was a known complication, not a veterinarian mistake.

The Board varied the Statement of Account from $6,810.76 to $5,037.99, reflecting a reduction requested by the respondent for a second opinion, and found the appellant failed to prove an inability to pay.

The self-represented appellant brought a motion seeking an extension of time to file written closing submissions, an increase in the page limit, and an in-person hearing to present the submissions.

The Animal Care Review Board granted the extension of time to accommodate the appellant, but denied the requests for a page limit increase and an in-person hearing, noting that the parties had previously consented to the 5-page limit and written format, and the appellant provided no compelling reasons to alter those terms.

The appellant appealed a Statement of Account (SOA) issued by the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector for the boarding and care of 29 domestic and exotic animals removed from her property.

The appellant argued the costs were excessive and unnecessary.

The Animal Care Review Board found that most of the expenses, including boarding and veterinary care, were reasonable and necessary to relieve the animals' distress.

However, the Board varied the SOA from $34,926.76 to $31,435.99, deducting excessive transportation costs, the cost of constructing a new exhibit for foxes, and a duplicate medical charge.

The appellant appealed the removal of 29 domestic and exotic animals from her property by Animal Welfare Services, as well as the decision to keep the animals in care, and applied for their return.

The Animal Care Review Board found that the animals were in distress at the time of removal due to inadequate food and water, poor sanitary conditions, insufficient enclosure space, hazardous conditions, and untreated medical issues.

The Board accepted expert veterinary evidence that removal was necessary to alleviate the distress.

The Board further held that the respondent had reasonable grounds to keep the animals in care, as several required ongoing medical treatment and the appellant had not demonstrated that the environmental conditions causing the distress had been rectified.

The appeals and the application for return were dismissed.

The appellant appealed the removal of his dog by Animal Welfare Services under the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, 2019.

Following the removal, the appellant was served with a Statement of Account but failed to pay or appeal it within the prescribed timelines, resulting in the dog's automatic forfeiture to the Crown.

The Animal Care Review Board found the appeal moot because it lacked jurisdiction to order the return of a forfeited animal.

Applying the Borowski framework, the Board declined to exercise its discretion to hear the moot appeal, noting the absence of an adversarial context and the need for judicial economy.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Board decision that confirmed a Statement of Account for $38,007.35 related to the care of his fourteen dogs after they were removed by the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector.

The applicant argued that he had new evidence, including photographs of the dogs' condition upon return, and that he was disadvantaged by not having legal representation at the original hearing.

The Board dismissed the request, finding that the applicant was attempting to relitigate his case, that procedural fairness does not require legal representation, and that the proposed new evidence could have been obtained prior to the original hearing.

The appellant requested a reconsideration of a Board order that dismissed his appeal of a Statement of Account for being filed past the 10-business day statutory deadline.

The appellant argued the Board erred in fact and reasoning by not accepting that his appeal was emailed on time but delayed by server errors.

The Board dismissed the reconsideration request, finding no error of law or fact, noting that the appellant failed to prove the email was received by the deadline and that statutory timelines cannot be waived.

The Board also rejected new evidence and a new ground of appeal regarding deemed service under the PAWS Act.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a prior Board decision that dismissed her application for the return of 31 cats due to mootness following their forfeiture.

The applicant alleged procedural fairness violations, failure to accommodate her disabilities, and errors regarding the service date of a Statement of Account.

The Board dismissed the reconsideration request, finding that it had not violated procedural fairness, had provided opportunities for accommodation, and had correctly acted within its jurisdiction to determine the service date and statutory forfeiture timelines.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Board order that dismissed her appeal of a Statement of Account under the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, 2019.

The original appeal was dismissed because it was filed after the prescribed 10-day statutory deadline.

The Board dismissed the reconsideration request, finding that the applicant failed to establish any of the grounds for reconsideration under Rule 18.2, and that the Board had no jurisdiction to accept a late appeal.

The appellant appealed a Statement of Account (SOA) issued by Animal Welfare Services for boarding and veterinary costs incurred after his fourteen dogs were removed for non-compliance with an order.

The original SOA amount of $41,566.85 was amended to $38,007.35 during the hearing to exclude boarding costs after the date the respondent determined the animals could be returned.

The Board found that the costs reflected actual and necessary expenses for boarding and medications, and that the amounts were reasonable.

The amended SOA was confirmed.

The Appellant appealed a Statement of Account issued by Animal Welfare Services for veterinary and boarding costs incurred after her animals were removed due to non-compliance with an animal welfare order.

The Appellant failed to attend the hearing, having pre-emptively stated she would not attend due to a medical appointment, but did not file a proper adjournment request.

The Board proceeded in her absence.

The Board confirmed the Statement of Account, finding the costs were reasonably incurred for the care of the removed animals and the Appellant failed to prove an inability to pay.

The appellant filed a request for reconsideration of a Fire Safety Commission decision regarding an order to remove combustible materials and create egress routes.

The appellant argued the Commission violated procedural fairness by not providing sufficient time to file materials and failing to accommodate accessibility needs, and sought to introduce new evidence.

The Commission dismissed the request, finding the appellant had sufficient time to file submissions, failed to serve the respondent, and did not establish that any new evidence could not have been obtained previously.

The applicant sought the return of 31 cats removed from her residence by Animal Welfare Services and the revocation of a compliance order.

The respondent issued a Statement of Account for veterinary and boarding costs, which the applicant failed to appeal or pay within the statutory deadlines, resulting in the forfeiture of the cats to the Crown.

The respondent brought a motion to dismiss the applications as moot.

The Board found that the cats were forfeited on August 19, 2025, and the compliance order was revoked by the respondent during the hearing.

Applying the Borowski framework, the Board concluded the applications were moot and declined to exercise its discretion to hear them.

The applications were dismissed.

The applicant sought the return of her dog, which had been removed by Animal Welfare Services for non-compliance with an order to obtain veterinary care.

The applicant failed to appeal or pay the subsequent Statement of Account within the statutory deadlines, resulting in the dog being forfeited to the Crown.

The respondent brought a motion to dismiss the application.

The Board granted the motion and dismissed the application, finding that it lacked jurisdiction to order the return of an animal that had been forfeited and become the property of the Crown.

The appellant appealed the removal of her dog by Animal Welfare Services.

Following the removal, the appellant was served with a Statement of Account for veterinary care, which she neither appealed nor paid within the prescribed statutory timelines.

Consequently, the dog was forfeited to the Crown by operation of statute.

The respondent moved to dismiss the appeal on the basis of mootness.

Applying the Borowski framework, the Board found the appeal moot because it lacked jurisdiction to return a forfeited animal.

The Board declined to exercise its discretion to hear the moot appeal, finding no remaining adversarial context and citing judicial economy.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed an Inspection Order issued by the fire department regarding excessive combustible materials and obstructed egress routes in her residential unit.

The Fire Safety Commission rescinded the original items regarding egress routes and pile stability, finding they were not properly justified as fire hazards under s. 21(1)(c) of the FPPA.

However, using its powers under s. 26(6), the Commission issued new orders under s. 21(1)(f) requiring 0.61 m egress paths and 1 m clearance from the ceiling for smoke alarm operation.

The Commission also amended the order requiring 1 m clearance from ignition sources to specify the stove and water heater, and adjusted the compliance timelines.

The Chief Animal Welfare Inspector brought a motion to dismiss the applicant's application for the return of two seized dogs.

The applicant failed to attend the hearing.

The Board found that the dogs had been statutorily forfeited to the Crown under s. 35(4) of the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, 2019, because the applicant failed to appeal or pay the Statement of Account within the prescribed timeframes.

Consequently, the Board concluded it lacked jurisdiction to order the return of the animals and dismissed the application.

The appellant appealed an order issued by Animal Welfare Services requiring her 13-year-old dog to undergo a full dental assessment under anesthesia, including necessary extractions and scaling.

The appellant argued the procedure was unnecessary and risky due to the dog's age, proposing instead to manage the condition with antibiotics and pain medication.

The Animal Care Review Board confirmed the order, finding that the dog was in distress due to severe untreated periodontal disease and that the appellant's proposed palliative care was not adequate or appropriate medical attention to relieve the distress.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector to keep his dog in care after it was removed due to an eye injury.

The respondent brought a motion to dismiss the appeal as moot, arguing the dog had been forfeited to the Crown under s. 35(4)(a) of the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act because the appellant failed to appeal or pay the statement of account within the prescribed time.

The Board found the appeal was moot as it lacked jurisdiction to return a forfeited animal.

Applying the Borowski framework, the Board declined to exercise its discretion to hear the moot appeal, finding no remaining adversarial context and that hearing it would be an inefficient use of resources.

The appeal was dismissed.