Tassia Poynter

The appellant requested a reconsideration of a decision dismissing his appeal of the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector's decision to keep a tiger cub and a spotted hyena in its care.

The appellant argued the Board made errors of law and fact regarding the interpretation of 'distress' under the PAWS Act, relied too heavily on AZA guidelines, and violated procedural fairness.

The Board dismissed the request, finding no errors of law or fact and no violation of procedural fairness, noting the appellant was attempting to re-litigate the original appeal.

The appellant appealed the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector's decision to keep a tiger cub and a spotted hyena in its care and applied for their return.

The animals were removed due to concerns about their diet, enclosures, daily routines, and social groupings.

The Animal Care Review Board found that the animals were in distress due to inadequate care and that the appellant's proposed changes were insufficient to meet the species-specific needs of the animals.

The appeal and application for return were dismissed.

The Chief Animal Welfare Inspector requested a reconsideration of a prior motion decision that dismissed the appellant's appeal and applications under the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, 2019.

The Inspector argued the Board made an error of law in its statutory interpretation of section 38 and violated procedural fairness by not allowing submissions on that interpretation.

The Board dismissed the reconsideration request, finding that the Inspector failed to demonstrate that the alleged error of law would have changed the outcome, and that the Inspector had been provided ample opportunity to make submissions during the original motion.

The appellant's sixteen horses were removed by the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector.

The appellant filed an appeal of a Statement of Account and applications for the revocation of an order and the return of the animals.

The respondent brought a motion to dismiss the appeal and applications.

The Board granted the motion, dismissing the Statement of Account appeal because the appellant failed to articulate grounds of appeal within the prescribed period and an amendment would cause prejudice and delay.

The application for revocation was dismissed as moot, and the application for return of animals was dismissed because it failed to address how the conditions causing distress had ceased and constituted an impermissible collateral attack on the underlying removal decision.

The appellant appealed two statements of account totaling over $7,800 for veterinary costs incurred after her dog was removed by an animal welfare inspector for emergency surgery.

The appellant did not attend the hearing.

The Animal Care Review Board found that while the respondent established the actual costs incurred, it failed to meet its initial evidentiary burden to prove the costs were reasonable, as it provided no evidence regarding typical or industry standard fees for the services.

Consequently, the Board varied both statements of account to $0.00.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector to keep his dog in care following its removal and subsequent surgery.

The appellant failed to appeal or pay the statement of account for the dog's care within the statutory deadlines, resulting in the dog's automatic forfeiture to the Crown.

The respondent moved to dismiss the appeal as moot.

The Animal Care Review Board granted the motion, finding it lacked jurisdiction to return an animal after forfeiture and declining to exercise its discretion to hear the moot appeal.