Susan Clarke

The appellant appealed the removal of her dog, a decision to keep the dog in care, and a statement of account issued by Animal Welfare Services.

The dog was removed after the appellant failed to comply with orders to have the dog re-examined by a veterinarian and to stop tethering the dog outdoors.

The Board found that the dog was in distress at the time of removal, that removal and keeping the dog in care were necessary to alleviate distress, and that the respondent had reasonable grounds to believe the dog would be placed in distress if returned.

The statement of account for veterinary and boarding costs was confirmed.

The appellant appealed a Decision to Keep in Care and a Statement of Account regarding his dog, Chester, who was removed by Animal Welfare Services due to an untreated eye infection and later diagnosed with lymphoma.

The Animal Care Review Board found that the conditions causing the dog's removal had not ceased to exist, as the appellant lacked the financial means and suitable housing to provide necessary medical care, meaning returning the dog would place him in distress.

The Board also confirmed the Statement of Account for $2,413.78, finding the expenses for emergency veterinary care and medical boarding were necessary and reasonable.

The Respondent, Cornwall Fire Services, brought a motion for costs against the corporate Appellant, 2416300 Ontario Inc., alleging unreasonable, frivolous, and vexatious conduct during the appeal process.

The Respondent sought $5,000 in costs, citing delays, failure to call expert witnesses, and disregard for procedural directions.

The Fire Safety Commission found that the Respondent failed to establish a solid evidentiary basis for the costs claim.

The Commission concluded that the adjournments and delays were not attributable to conduct that would justify a costs award, and dismissed the motion.

The appellant requested a reconsideration of the Board's decision dismissing her appeal of a Keep in Care Decision.

The original appeal was dismissed because the appellant failed to appeal or pay a Statement of Account, resulting in the forfeiture of her animals to the Crown by operation of statute.

The Board dismissed the request for reconsideration, finding that the appellant failed to establish any of the grounds for reconsideration under Rule 18.2, as she provided no relevant evidence or explanation connecting her claims to the required criteria.

The Appellants appealed a Notice of Removal and a Statement of Account issued by the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector regarding eight dogs removed from their property.

The Animal Care Review Board found that the dogs were in distress at the time of removal due to heat exhaustion, lack of water, and unacceptable housing conditions, and that their removal was necessary.

The Board dismissed the appeal for the return of the dogs, finding insufficient evidence that the conditions causing the distress had been corrected.

The Board varied the Statement of Account for boarding and veterinary costs from $5,149.86 to $5,025.56 to account for a vaccination and heartworm test that had already been administered to one of the dogs.

The appellant, a federally regulated transportation company, appealed an Inspection Order requiring the installation of portable fire extinguishers on four fuel-fired forklifts in its warehouse pursuant to the Ontario Fire Code.

The appellant argued that as a federally regulated workplace subject to the Canada Labour Code, the Ontario Fire Code did not apply and would result in double regulation.

The Fire Safety Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the Ontario Fire Code applies to the privately-owned building and that, in the event of a conflict with federal labour regulations, the more stringent requirements of the Ontario Fire Code prevail.

The appellant was ordered to install the fire extinguishers within three months.

The appellant building owner appealed an inspection order requiring the installation of an operational fire alarm system and that all work be performed by qualified persons.

The Fire Safety Commission found that the existing fire alarm system was not functioning as intended, could not be repaired due to discontinued parts and lost programming, and had its ULC listing voided by unauthorized access from a non-certified technician.

The Commission amended the order to clarify the specific Fire Code contraventions and extended the compliance date to six months, effectively requiring the replacement of the fire alarm system.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Removal issued by Animal Welfare Services after five dogs were removed from his residence.

The dogs were removed following complaints and video evidence showing the appellant repeatedly striking the dogs, which an expert veterinarian concluded caused physical and psychological distress.

The Animal Care Review Board found that the dogs were in distress at the time of removal and that the removal was necessary and lawful.

The Board dismissed the appeal and ordered that the dogs not be returned to the appellant.

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 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 appealed a Fire Marshal's Review Decision that amended an Inspection Order regarding fire code contraventions at a former hospital building.

The order required the appellant to either repair and maintain the emergency power generator or formally apply to the Chief Fire Official to decommission it.

The appellant argued that the fire department had previously permitted the installation of emergency lighting in lieu of repairing the generator and that the generator was not a life safety system requiring formal decommissioning.

The Fire Safety Commission confirmed the Review Decision, finding that the emergency lighting was only an interim measure and that the generator, as part of the building's fire protection equipment, must be maintained or formally decommissioned.

The Commission extended the compliance date to six months from the release of the decision or from when the appellant is granted access to the building.

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 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 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.

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 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 appellant appealed two inspection orders issued by the Smith Falls Fire Department regarding multiple alleged Fire Code violations at a large, multi-building complex.

The parties settled most issues, leaving seven items for the Fire Safety Commission to determine.

The Commission confirmed the orders requiring a fire separation for the theatrical stage, repairs to ensure certain fire separation doors close and latch, the maintenance of standpipe testing records, and the installation of exit signage.

The Commission rescinded the orders regarding two sets of doors, finding they were not required fire separations because they did not open onto public corridors or were not originally built as fire separations.

The appellant appealed compliance orders, a notice of removal, and statements of account issued by Animal Welfare Services regarding poultry, waterfowl, and rabbits on her farm.

The Board found the initial inspection lawful under the PAWS Act.

The Board confirmed the removal of the animals was justified due to distress caused by cold stress, unsanitary conditions, and lack of proper care.

Statement of Account #2 was confirmed, and Statement of Account #3 was slightly varied.

The compliance order for the remaining birds was confirmed with an extended compliance date.

The appellant appealed a Compliance Order issued by Animal Welfare Services requiring her to have a veterinarian assess her cattle.

During a case conference, the parties reached a settlement to modify the order to apply to two specific cattle and extend the compliance deadline.

The Board issued a consent order modifying the Compliance Order under the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, 2019, and the appellant agreed to withdraw her appeal.