2 total
Board struck appeal grounds regarding inspector conduct and Charter violations, finding it lacks jurisdiction over both.
The Chief Animal Welfare Inspector (CAWI) brought motions to strike certain grounds of appeal raised by the appellants regarding the removal of over 200 dogs.
The CAWI sought to strike grounds relating to the conduct of inspectors during the removal and alleged Charter violations, arguing the Animal Care Review Board lacks jurisdiction over these matters.
The Board granted the motion to strike the grounds relating to inspector conduct, finding it has no jurisdiction to oversee inspector conduct under the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act.
The Board also determined it is not a court of competent jurisdiction under s. 24(1) of the Charter and struck the appellants' Charter arguments.
However, the Board dismissed the CAWI's request to preclude the appellants from calling evidence on issues from previous proceedings, finding that res judicata and issue estoppel did not apply because the issues in dispute were not identical.
Motion for return of removed dogs dismissed; appellants failed to prove prejudice from alleged disclosure delays.
The appellants, operators of a dog sledding and horse-riding business, appealed the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector's removal of over 200 dogs from their properties.
The appellants brought a motion seeking the return of the dogs and dismissal of the proceedings, or alternatively an interim stay, alleging untimely and incomplete disclosure by the respondent.
The Animal Care Review Board dismissed the motion, finding insufficient evidence of outstanding disclosure and concluding that the appellants failed to demonstrate actual prejudice to their ability to make full answer and defence.
