Susan Clarke

The appellant filed a motion to amend a consent order regarding the proceeds of the sale of cattle removed from his property by Animal Welfare Services.

The appellant requested that the proceeds be held by a third party instead of the respondent.

The respondent opposed the motion, arguing the Board lacked jurisdiction to amend a consent order without consent.

The Board dismissed the motion, finding that it is a creature of statute and its powers under section 38(9) of the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act do not include the ability to vary a consent order without the agreement of both parties.

The appellants appealed a Statement of Account issued following the removal of three chickens from their property.

The appellants failed to attend the scheduled teleconference hearing and did not respond to communications from the Board or the respondent.

The Board issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss for abandonment, to which the appellants did not respond.

The Board dismissed the appeal for abandonment.

The Board declined to confirm the Statement of Account without a hearing but noted the statutory obligation to pay.

The respondent's request for costs was denied, as the appellants' failure to attend did not meet the high threshold of unreasonable, frivolous, vexatious, or bad faith conduct.

The appellant appealed a Statement of Account in the amount of $6,612.11 for the veterinary care and boarding of her kitten, which was removed by Animal Welfare Services after suffering a broken leg.

The appellant did not dispute the necessity of the care but requested a payment plan due to severe financial hardship.

The respondent refused a payment plan and indicated the kitten would be forfeited if the account was not paid.

The Animal Care Review Board varied the Statement of Account to $0.00, finding that the appellant had no ability to pay and that forfeiture would be unjust given her circumstances and the lack of fault on her part.

The respondent brought a motion to dismiss the appellant's appeals of two compliance orders, a Notice of Removal, and a Statement of Account, arguing they were filed outside the statutory five-business day appeal period under the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act.

The Board held that the appeal period is a jurisdictional issue and cannot be extended.

The appeals of the compliance orders and removal order were dismissed as late.

However, the Board found that the appeal of the Statement of Account was filed on the final day of the appeal period, varying its rules to accept an email filing after 5:00 p.m. due to the Board's fax machine being unavailable.

The motion to dismiss the appeal of the Statement of Account was denied.

The appellant appealed a Statement of Account issued by Animal Welfare Services for veterinary care and boarding provided to his dog, which was removed from an emergency clinic after being abandoned.

The appellant argued he could not afford the care and that euthanasia should have been considered.

The Animal Care Review Board found the veterinary costs were reasonable and necessary to relieve the dog's distress, as the treating veterinarian did not recommend euthanasia.

However, the Board varied the Statement of Account from $10,802.79 to $10,352.10, removing boarding costs incurred after the appeal period for the removal had expired, at which point the dog could have been put up for adoption.

The appellant appealed a Review Order from the Fire Marshal requiring fire safety upgrades to her student rental property under section 9.3 of the Ontario Fire Code.

At the time of the initial inspection, the building housed five tenants, but the appellant subsequently reduced the occupancy to four tenants with no intention of renting the remaining rooms.

The Fire Safety Commission found that because lodging was no longer provided for more than four persons, section 9.3 of the Fire Code did not apply.

The items under appeal from the Review Order were rescinded.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector to keep his two dogs after they were removed due to distress.

The dogs were removed following video evidence of the appellant repeatedly hitting and kicking them.

The appellant argued his actions were based on a misunderstanding of dog training videos and sought the return of the dogs, offering to undergo training.

The Animal Care Review Board declined to order the return of the dogs, finding reasonable grounds to believe they would be placed in distress if returned, as they would recognize the appellant as their abuser and the appellant lacked an intuitive comprehension of a dog's needs.

The appellants requested a reconsideration of a Fire Safety Commission decision that rescinded inspection orders but imposed additional fire safety measures on their student-occupied residential properties.

The appellants argued the Commission erred in fact and law, and breached procedural fairness, particularly regarding the requirement to install fire-rated bedroom doors without their consent.

The Commission dismissed the reconsideration request, finding that its authority to impose additional safety measures under section 26(6) of the Fire Protection and Prevention Act does not require the appellants' consent nor depend on the properties' Fire Code classification.

The appellant appealed a Fire Marshal's Review decision requiring the installation of a fire alarm system in his three-storey building, which operates as a seven-suite hotel.

The appellant argued that the building should be exempt from the fire alarm requirement and proposed an alternative solution allowing occupants of a third-floor suite without direct exterior access to exit through an adjacent suite using a key.

The Fire Safety Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the building meets the definition of a hotel under the Ontario Fire Code and is subject to the fire alarm requirement.

The Commission rejected the appellant's proposed alternative solution, concluding that it violated the Fire Code by requiring specialized knowledge and a key to access the exit, and failed to provide a dedicated exterior exit facility.

The order to install a fire alarm system was confirmed with an extended compliance date.

The appellant appealed a statement of account for $8,271.73 issued by Animal Welfare Services for the boarding and veterinary care of her cat, which had been removed to relieve its distress.

The appellant argued the costs were too high and that she could not afford them.

The Animal Care Review Board found the veterinary and boarding costs were reasonable and medically necessary, supported by unchallenged veterinary testimony.

The Board confirmed the statement of account, finding the appellant responsible for the costs and noting she provided no evidence of financial hardship.

The appellant appealed two inspection orders issued by the Office of the Fire Marshal and Emergency Management regarding a multi-unit residential building.

Order 21-005 required the installation of an exhaust ventilation and fire protection system for a cooking operation, while Order 21-004 required interim fire safety measures.

The Fire Safety Commission found that while the Ontario Fire Code requirements for cooking operations applied to the building, the respondent failed to prove that the cooking operation produced significant grease-laden vapours to constitute a contravention.

Consequently, Order 21-005 was rescinded.

However, Order 21-004 was confirmed as the interim measures were deemed necessary to ensure fire safety given the building's remote location and non-working fire alarm system.

The appellant appealed the removal of nine horses from her property by Animal Welfare Services and the associated statements of account.

The Animal Care Review Board found that the horses were in distress due to lack of proper care, food, and shelter, and that their removal was warranted under the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act.

The Board declined to order the return of the remaining horses because the appellant had not fully complied with a prior compliance order and the horses were still receiving treatment.

The Board varied the first statement of account to $13,284.35 and confirmed the second statement of account at $11,587.21.

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

The cat had an advanced sarcoma on its foot, which was necrotic and discharging.

The appellant had refused amputation or euthanasia, opting for palliative care with leftover medication.

The Board found that the cat was in distress at the time of removal and that the inspector had the authority to remove it based on a veterinarian's certificate.

Although the cat's leg was subsequently amputated, the Board found it was still in distress due to the need for ongoing post-operative care.

The Board declined to return the cat to the appellant, finding she was unable to adequately provide the necessary care.

The appellant appealed a 2021 Inspection Order and an Authorization to Close issued by Toronto Fire Services regarding a residential building.

The Fire Safety Commission rescinded the 2021 Inspection Order and the Authorization to Close, finding them redundant because a previous Commission order requiring the same work was still in effect.

The Commission also found that the appellant was not in violation of the previous order at the time of the inspection, as the number of tenants in the upper unit had been reduced below the threshold required for the Fire Code's rooming house provisions to apply.

The appellant appealed a second Statement of Account issued for the continued care of her 33 dogs, which had been previously removed and forfeited.

The Board issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss the appeal without a hearing.

The appellant's submissions focused on re-litigating the previous removal order, seeking the return of her dogs, and complaining about an earlier Criminal Code charge.

The Board dismissed the appeal without a hearing, finding it frivolous, outside the Board's jurisdiction, and failing to meet the statutory requirements for bringing an appeal.

The appellant appealed a Removal Order and a Statement of Account relating to the removal of her two dogs by Animal Welfare Services.

The appellant failed to attend the scheduled teleconference hearing or provide any submissions.

The Animal Care Review Board dismissed the appeal as abandoned.

In the alternative, the Board found that the extensive evidence provided by the respondent demonstrated the dogs were in distress, justified their removal, and supported confirming the Statement of Account for veterinary and boarding costs.

The appellants appealed inspection orders issued by Thunder Bay Fire Rescue requiring their student rental properties to comply with the Ontario Fire Code provisions for rooming houses.

The Fire Safety Commission found that the properties were occupied as single housekeeping dwelling units, not rooming houses, based on evidence of collective decision-making among the student tenants.

The Commission rescinded the inspection orders but, on consent, ordered additional fire safety measures under section 26(6) of the Fire Protection and Prevention Act, 1997, given the unique risks of student housing.

The appellant appealed the removal of 89 horses (which later had foals, totaling 98) and a Statement of Account of approximately $650,000 under the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act.

Despite extensive procedural history and opportunities, the appellant failed to provide disclosure or submissions.

The Board deemed the appeal abandoned.

Alternatively, the Board found the horses were in distress at the time of removal due to malnourishment, lack of care, and untreated medical conditions, and confirmed the Statement of Account as reasonable.

The appellant appealed a Review Decision of the Fire Marshal that modified an Inspection Order regarding a hoarding situation in his apartment.

The Order required the appellant to maintain a 1-metre clearance from ignition sources and ceilings, and to provide a 1-metre egress pathway.

The appellant argued the requirements were impractical for his small apartment and that he was unfairly targeted.

The Fire Safety Commission found the measures were necessary to ensure fire safety, reasonable, and clear.

The Commission confirmed the Review Decision and extended the compliance date as agreed by the parties.

The appellant appealed an Inspection Order and an Order to Close issued by Toronto Fire Services regarding the third storey of a property he co-owned.

The orders required the closure of the third floor until a second exit was provided, on the basis that the property was operating as a rooming house.

The appellant argued the property was a legal duplex and that a window provided a sufficient second exit.

The Fire Safety Commission found that the upper unit was occupied as a rooming house and was subject to Section 9.3 of the Fire Code, which requires two exits.

The Commission determined the window was not an acceptable exit.

The Commission amended the Inspection Order to provide a compliance option of reverting the unit back to a single dwelling unit, and confirmed the Order to Close due to the high risk to occupants.