Adrien Iafrate

The appellant appealed a Statement of Account (SOA#2) for $7,232.13 issued by the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector for the boarding costs of a dog removed from his care.

The Board found that the costs were actually incurred and reasonable.

However, considering the appellant's financial circumstances, including his reliance on social assistance and limited ability to pay, the Board exercised its discretion to vary the SOA by 50%, reducing the amount owed to $3,616.06.

The appellant requested a reconsideration of a prior decision that confirmed a Statement of Account and dismissed the application for the return of his dog.

The appellant argued procedural unfairness, errors of fact, reliance on false evidence, and sought to introduce new medical evidence.

The Animal Care Review Board dismissed the request, finding that the appellant had declined additional time for late disclosure, failed to request accommodation, and merely disagreed with the Board's weighing of veterinary evidence.

The Board also found that the allegedly false evidence was not relied upon and the new evidence did not meet the criteria for reconsideration.

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's dog was removed by Animal Welfare Services after video footage showed the appellant repeatedly kicking, throwing, and dragging the dog in the common areas of his apartment building.

The appellant appealed the Statement of Account for veterinary and boarding costs and applied for the return of the dog.

The Animal Care Review Board found that the dog was in distress and removal was necessary.

The Board confirmed the Statement of Account, finding the costs reasonable and necessary.

The Board dismissed the application for return, concluding the appellant failed to demonstrate that the conditions causing the distress had ceased to exist, as there was no expert evidence of sustained behavioural change.

The appellant appealed a Decision to Keep 32 cats that were removed from her residence by Animal Welfare Services.

The respondent brought a motion to dismiss the appeal as moot, arguing the cats had been forfeited to the Crown because the appellant failed to appeal or pay the Statement of Account within the prescribed timelines under the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act.

The Board found that the cats were forfeited by automatic operation of the statute, rendering the appeal moot as the Board could no longer order their return.

Applying the Borowski framework, the Board declined to exercise its discretion to hear the moot appeal, finding no remaining adversarial context or justification to expend resources.

The appellant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that upheld the Registrar's refusal to issue a security guard agency licence.

The appellant argued the Tribunal made errors of fact and law by adopting the Registrar's findings regarding corporate control, and breached procedural fairness by rejecting sworn affidavits.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that it had properly reviewed the Registrar's factual findings for reasonableness and had not committed any material breach of procedural fairness.

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 Ministry of the Solicitor General sought judicial review of a Presiding Coroner's interlocutory decision regarding the scope of an upcoming inquest into seven deaths at the Elgin-Middlesex Detention Centre.

The Coroner had included issues of correctional programming and staff absenteeism in the scope, and admitted expert evidence on programming.

The Divisional Court held that the challenge to the evidentiary ruling was premature.

On the scope issues, the Court found the Coroner's decision reasonable, as there was sufficient evidence to warrant considering whether programming and staffing were contributing factors to the deaths.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant's dog was removed by Animal Welfare Services and a statement of account for veterinary care was issued.

The applicant failed to appeal or pay the statement of account within the statutory deadlines, resulting in the automatic forfeiture of the dog to the Crown under s. 35(4) of the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, 2019.

The respondent brought a motion to dismiss the applicant's application for the return of the dog on the basis of mootness.

The Animal Care Review Board granted the motion, finding that it lacked jurisdiction to order the return of the dog due to the forfeiture, and declined to exercise its discretion to hear the moot application.

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 a Statement of Account (SOA) issued by Animal Welfare Services for veterinary costs incurred after four dogs were removed from her care due to parvovirus.

The appellant argued she lacked the financial ability to pay the $30,714.84 SOA.

The Animal Care Review Board found that while the costs were generally reasonable and necessary, there were some discrepancies in the billing.

Considering the appellant's limited financial means, the Board varied the SOA, reducing it by 50 percent minus a previously paid fee, ordering the appellant to pay $13,729.58.

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 appellant appealed the Registrar's decision to refuse its application for a security guard agency licence.

The Registrar refused the licence based on the involvement of the director's son, who was deemed an 'interested person' with a history of operating a noncompliant and bankrupt security agency.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the Registrar's conclusion that the son was an interested person to be reasonable and supported by evidence.

The Tribunal also dismissed the appellant's claims of procedural unfairness and reasonable apprehension of bias, confirming the Registrar's decision to refuse the licence.

The Chief Animal Welfare Inspector brought a motion to dismiss the appellant's appeal of a decision to keep 72 cats and 1 dog in its care.

The respondent argued the appeal was moot because 65 cats and 1 dog had been forfeited to the Crown after the appellant failed to pay or appeal a Statement of Account within the statutory timeframes.

The Animal Care Review Board granted the motion, finding it lacked jurisdiction to order the return of the forfeited animals.

The appeal was allowed to proceed only with respect to 7 kittens born in care, which were not subject to the Statement of Account and had not been forfeited.

The appellant appealed the removal of his dog by Animal Welfare Services following a complaint of physical abuse.

The Board reviewed video evidence showing the appellant physically abusing the dog and accepted expert veterinary evidence that the dog was in physical and psychological distress.

The Board found the removal was lawful and necessary to alleviate distress.

The Board further held that the conditions causing the removal had not ceased to exist, as returning the dog would cause additional psychological distress, and dismissed the appeal for the dog's return.

The appellant appealed a Statement of Account in the amount of $7,491.28 issued by Animal Welfare Services for veterinary and boarding costs related to her dog.

The dog was removed from the appellant's care after she failed to comply with an order to seek veterinary treatment for the dog's broken leg, which ultimately required amputation.

The Animal Care Review Board confirmed the Statement of Account, finding that the costs were reasonable, reflected actual necessaries provided to relieve the dog's distress, and were incurred due to the appellant's non-compliance and inability to provide proper care.

The appellant pet store owner appealed a Statement of Account for veterinary care provided to an iguana that had been abandoned at his store.

The appellant argued he was not the owner or custodian of the animal.

The Animal Care Review Board found that by keeping, feeding, and maintaining the iguana for approximately a week, the appellant met the definition of a custodian under the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act.

The Board confirmed the Statement of Account, finding the veterinary charges to relieve the animal's distress were reasonable and necessary.

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 appellant appealed the removal of 11 dogs, one kitten, and one rabbit from her premises by Animal Welfare Services, as well as the statements of account for their care.

The animals were removed under a warrant after a veterinarian assessed them as being in distress due to poor living conditions, malnutrition, and physical abuse.

The Animal Care Review Board found the testimony of the inspectors and veterinarians credible and concluded the animals were in distress at the time of removal.

The Board confirmed the removal, upheld the statements of account, and declined to order the return of the animals.