Ziba Heydarian

The appellant appealed a Notice of Removal issued by Animal Welfare Services regarding five rabbits removed from his property.

The respondent brought a motion to dismiss the appeal on the basis of mootness, arguing the rabbits had been automatically forfeited to the Crown under s. 35(4) of the PAWS Act because the appellant failed to pay or appeal the Statement of Account within the prescribed timelines.

The Animal Care Review Board granted the motion, finding that the forfeiture was final and irreversible, rendering the appeal moot as the rabbits could not be returned.

The Board declined to exercise its discretion to hear the moot appeal, noting the lack of an adversarial context or special circumstances.

The appellant property owner appealed an inspection order issued by the Brantford Fire Department regarding 23 Fire Code violations at an illegal lodging house.

The appellant did not dispute the violations but sought an extension of time to comply due to financial constraints and ongoing planning disputes with the city.

The Fire Safety Commission found that while the appellant had not taken sufficient steps to achieve compliance and significant fire risks remained, a brief extension was appropriate to allow the appellant to commence compliance activities.

The inspection order was amended to extend the compliance date to June 30, 2026.

The appellant appealed two Fire Marshal Review Orders confirming Inspection Orders that required the appellant to either install a sprinkler system or reduce storage heights to 4.5 meters to comply with the Fire Code.

The appellant argued that the orders effectively required structural alterations, which is prohibited under s. 22(1) of the Fire Protection and Prevention Act, 1997 for buildings constructed prior to 1992.

The Fire Safety Commission found that the orders did not require structural repairs, as reducing storage height was a viable alternative to installing sprinklers.

The Commission also ruled that the orders remained enforceable despite the appellant corporation's recent amalgamation.

The appeals were dismissed, but the compliance date was extended.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Removal regarding three dogs removed by Animal Welfare Services.

The respondent brought a motion to dismiss the appeal on the grounds that the dogs had been forfeited to the Crown due to the appellant's failure to appeal or pay a Statement of Account within the prescribed statutory timelines.

The Board granted the motion and dismissed the appeal, finding that it lacked jurisdiction to order the return of forfeited animals and that the appeal was moot with no live controversy.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Removal regarding her 12 cats, which were removed by Animal Welfare Services.

Subsequently, a Statement of Account was issued for the costs of caring for the cats.

The appellant failed to appeal or pay the Statement of Account within the statutory deadlines, resulting in the cats being forfeited to the Crown under s. 35(4) of the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act.

The respondent moved to dismiss the appeal of the Notice of Removal as moot.

The Board granted the motion, finding it had no jurisdiction to order the return of the cats once they became the property of the Crown.

The appellant appealed a statement of account issued by Animal Welfare Services for costs incurred in caring for 22 dogs removed from her property due to non-compliance with a previous order.

The Animal Care Review Board found that the respondent met its burden of proving the costs were reasonable and necessary.

The appellant failed to provide sufficient evidence of financial hardship to justify varying or revoking the statement of account.

The Board confirmed the statement of account, minus a $330 reduction agreed to by the respondent, and ordered the appellant to pay $28,907.69.

The appellants appealed a decision by the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector to keep their dog in care under the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, 2019.

The dog was removed based on a neighbour's allegations of physical abuse.

The Board found the neighbour's testimony lacked credibility and was motivated by an ongoing dispute.

Finding no physical evidence of abuse and accepting the appellants' evidence of proper care, the Board concluded the respondent lacked reasonable grounds to believe the dog would be in distress if returned.

The appeal was allowed and the dog was ordered returned to the appellants.

The appellant appealed a statement of account issued by Animal Welfare Services for the costs of veterinary care provided to his puppy, which was removed due to critical distress from heat stroke.

The appellant argued he could not afford the treatment and did not consent to it.

The Animal Care Review Board found the costs were reasonable and necessary, and the appellant failed to provide evidence of financial hardship.

The statement of account for $509.63 was confirmed.

The appellants appealed a Statement of Account for $13,550.80 issued by the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector for boarding and veterinary costs incurred after 17 animals were removed from their care.

The Board found that the respondent met its evidentiary burden to prove the costs were reasonable and necessary, supported by expert veterinary testimony and invoices.

The appellants failed to provide sufficient evidence of financial hardship to justify varying the account on that basis.

The Board varied the Statement of Account slightly to $13,451.36 to reflect a refund for a different testing method.

The appellant's dogs were removed by Animal Welfare Services while he was incarcerated.

He appealed a Statement of Account for boarding costs totaling $7,085.00, arguing financial hardship due to being under house arrest and unable to work.

The Animal Care Review Board found the boarding costs were reasonable and necessary.

However, accepting the appellant's evidence of limited financial means, the Board exercised its discretion to vary the Statement of Account, reducing the amount owed by 50 percent to $3,542.55.

The appellant appealed an order issued by Animal Welfare Services requiring her to take specific actions to relieve distress for 15 horses on her property.

The inspector had issued the order after a brief visit where she observed only two horses and did not conduct a full inspection of the property or the animals' living conditions.

The Animal Care Review Board found that the inspector lacked sufficient evidence to conclude the horses were in distress, noting the appellant's credible testimony, photographic evidence, and veterinary confirmation of the horses' well-being.

The Board revoked the order.

The appellant filed a request for reconsideration of a Board decision that dismissed her appeal of a Notice of Removal and Application for Return.

The original appeal was dismissed because the appellant's dogs had been forfeited to the Crown following non-payment of a statement of account, leaving no legal remedy available.

The Board dismissed the request for reconsideration, finding that the appellant failed to provide particulars of any error of law or fact, and noting that even if reconsideration were granted, the Board has no jurisdiction to order the return of animals after statutory forfeiture has occurred.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Removal and applied for the return of her dog and its puppies.

The Chief Animal Welfare Inspector brought a motion to dismiss the appeal and application on the basis that the animals had been forfeited to the Crown due to the appellant's failure to appeal or pay two Statements of Account within the statutory deadlines.

The Animal Care Review Board granted the motion, finding that it lacked jurisdiction to order the return of the animals following their automatic forfeiture under the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, 2019, rendering the matters moot.

The appellant's dog was removed by Animal Welfare Services after the appellant failed to comply with an order to provide veterinary treatment for birth complications.

The appellant appealed the compliance order but failed to appeal or pay the subsequent Statement of Account within the statutory deadlines.

As a result, the dog was automatically forfeited to the Crown.

The respondent moved to dismiss the appeal.

The Animal Care Review Board granted the motion, finding that the appeal was moot because the forfeiture was irreversible and the Board had no jurisdiction to order the return of the animal.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Removal and a Decision to Keep in Care regarding her dog, and filed an Application for Return.

However, she failed to appeal or pay the Statement of Account within the statutory deadlines, resulting in the dog being automatically forfeited to the Crown under s. 35(4) of the PAWS Act.

The respondent brought a motion to dismiss the appeals and application.

The appellant did not attend the motion hearing.

The Board granted the motion, finding that it lacked jurisdiction to order the return of the dog following forfeiture, rendering the appeals and application moot.

The appellant appealed a Statement of Account (SOA) issued by Animal Welfare Services for boarding and veterinary costs incurred after her diabetic cat was removed due to lack of medical treatment.

The appellant argued she could not afford the treatment at the time but her financial situation had since improved.

The Animal Care Review Board found the costs were reasonable, necessary, and fell below standard veterinary fee guidelines.

The Board confirmed the SOA in the amount of $6,230.33, finding no basis to reduce it given the appellant's improved financial circumstances.

The appellant appealed several orders, a notice of removal, a decision to keep animals, and a statement of account issued by Animal Welfare Services regarding two horses.

The horses were found to be emaciated and living in hazardous conditions without adequate food or potable water.

The adjudicator found that the horses were in distress and that the appellant failed to comply with the initial orders to provide veterinary care and improve their living conditions.

The removal of the horses was deemed necessary to relieve their distress, and the decision to keep them in care was upheld as returning them would likely place them back in distress.

The statement of account for veterinary and boarding costs was confirmed, and the appellant's request for costs was denied.

The Respondent requested a reconsideration of a Fire Safety Commission decision that ordered him to install a complete sprinkler system in a building.

The reconsideration request was filed past the 21-day deadline and failed to include mandatory information required by Rule 18.1 of the Common Rules of Practice and Procedure.

Furthermore, the Commission found no merit to the Respondent's argument that a previously withdrawn appeal created res judicata.

The request for reconsideration was dismissed.

The Appellant requested a reconsideration of a previous Animal Care Review Board decision that upheld the removal of her two Great Danes due to distress and unsanitary conditions, and confirmed a Statement of Account.

The Appellant argued the Board acted outside its jurisdiction, made errors of fact, heard false evidence, and that new evidence was available.

The Board found the Appellant failed to provide persuasive evidence or meet any of the criteria for reconsideration under Rule 18.2.

The request for reconsideration was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Removal issued by Animal Welfare Services after her dog was removed due to allegations of physical and psychological abuse.

The Animal Care Review Board found that the dog was in distress at the time of removal, supported by eyewitness accounts of the appellant striking the dog and expert veterinary testimony regarding the psychological impacts of caregiver abuse.

The appeal was dismissed.