Alice Liu

The appellant appealed a Notice of Non-Compliance and applied to revoke an Order issued under the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act regarding the care of her animals.

Prior to the conclusion of the hearing, Animal Welfare Services revoked the Order.

The respondent moved to dismiss the proceedings for mootness.

Applying the Borowski test, the Board found the matters were moot because the revocation eliminated any live controversy and left the Board without a statutory remedy to grant.

The Board declined to exercise its discretion to hear the moot matters, citing judicial economy and its limited statutory jurisdiction.

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 appellant appealed a Decision to Keep in Care issued by the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector regarding his dog, who was removed due to severe chronic ear infections.

The Board found that the dog required specialized surgical treatment that the appellant had failed to provide over several years.

The Board concluded that it was necessary to keep the dog in care to relieve his distress and that returning the dog to the appellant would place him back in distress, given the appellant's inability to provide or afford the necessary ongoing veterinary care.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a Statement of Account issued by Animal Welfare Services for veterinary, transportation, and boarding costs related to the removal of 22 dogs from her residence.

The Board found the boarding costs reasonable and confirmed them.

However, the Board varied the veterinary and transportation costs, finding it unreasonable to charge the appellant for a medical condition that developed after the dogs were removed from her care.

The appellant's claim of financial hardship was dismissed for lack of evidence.

The Statement of Account was varied from $38,779.58 to $37,621.90.

The Appellant appealed the removal of his dog by Animal Welfare Services.

Prior to the hearing, the dog was forfeited to the Crown because the Appellant failed to pay or appeal a Statement of Account.

The Respondent moved to dismiss the appeal as moot.

The Board found the appeal was moot but exercised its discretion to hear it, noting the outcome could affect future costs.

However, at the merits hearing, neither party presented any evidence.

The Appellant failed to attend, and the Respondent declined to call evidence or make submissions.

Consequently, the Board dismissed the appeal for lack of evidence.