Danielle Meuleman

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 appellants appealed an order issued by Animal Welfare Services requiring them to take their dog, Kylo, to a veterinarian and provide documentation.

The appellants sought revocation of the order on the basis that the dog had gone missing while hunting coyotes in Alberta and was presumed dead.

The respondent agreed to revoke the order as it related to the dog, given that the dog was either deceased or no longer in the appellants' custody.

The Board revoked the order.

The appellant appealed a decision by Animal Welfare Services to remove his dog from his care.

The dog was removed after inspectors received complaints and audio recordings of the appellant yelling at, threatening, and physically striking the dog or its crate.

An expert veterinarian opined that the appellant's loud, angry outbursts and physical actions caused the dog psychological and physical distress.

The Animal Care Review Board found that the dog was in distress due to both physical and psychological abuse, and upheld the removal order.

The appellant appealed a Statement of Account issued by Animal Welfare Services for $68,284.85 relating to the boarding, veterinary care, and animal care of 21 horses removed due to distress.

The appellant disputed the boarding costs, arguing that indoor boarding was unnecessary and the rates were exorbitant compared to outdoor boarding.

The Animal Care Review Board found the choice of boarding facility rational given the need for immediate capacity and safety.

The Board concluded that the respondent met its evidentiary burden to prove the costs were reasonable and confirmed the Statement of Account in full.

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.

The appellants appealed a Statement of Account issued by Animal Welfare Services for the costs of boarding and veterinary care for their removed animals.

The appellants argued the charges were excessive, the care was sub-optimal, and they lacked the ability to pay.

The Animal Care Review Board confirmed the Statement of Account in the amount of $17,086.36, finding that the care provided was necessary, the boarding rates and veterinary fees were reasonable and consistent with industry guidelines, and the appellants failed to provide sufficient documentary evidence to prove an inability to pay.

The Respondent Chief Animal Welfare Inspector brought a motion to prohibit the Appellants from calling the Respondent's counsel as a witness in an appeal regarding a Statement of Account for animal care costs.

The Appellants sought to call opposing counsel to testify about alleged stalking and misleading the Board.

The Animal Care Review Board granted the motion, finding it had no jurisdiction to hear complaints against lawyers, the Appellants failed to provide proper notice or a witness statement, and counsel cannot act as both a witness and representative for their client.

The appellants appealed a Statement of Account for $200,525.96 issued by Animal Welfare Services for the costs of boarding and veterinary care for 83 cats and kittens removed from their property.

The Board found that the boarding and veterinary charges were reasonable and necessary to relieve the animals' distress.

However, the Board exercised its discretion under section 38(9) of the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act to vary the account to $20,052.59, representing ten percent of the original amount, due to the appellants' dire financial circumstances, medical issues, and risk of losing their property.

The Chief Animal Welfare Inspector removed 75 dogs from the applicant's property and subsequently issued a statement of account for their care.

The applicant failed to appeal or pay the statement of account within the statutory timelines, resulting in the dogs being forfeited to the Crown by operation of law.

The applicant then applied to the Animal Care Review Board for the return of the dogs.

The Board granted the Inspector's motion to dismiss the application, finding that it lacked jurisdiction to order the return of the animals because the applicant ceased to be their owner upon forfeiture.

The appellants appealed decisions by the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector to keep five dogs, one cat, and one horse in care after they were removed from a moving truck in high heat without adequate food, water, or ventilation.

The Animal Care Review Board found that the animals were in distress at the time of removal and that the appellants lacked the appropriate accommodations, boarding arrangements, and veterinary expertise to properly care for them.

The Board dismissed the appeals and declined to order the return of the animals, concluding they would be placed in distress if returned.

The appellant appealed a Statement of Account (SOA) for $4,629.40 issued by Animal Welfare Services for emergency veterinary care provided to his dog.

The dog required an emergency C-section, which the appellant could not afford, prompting the removal of the dog and the subsequent surgery.

The Animal Care Review Board found that the removal was lawful and necessary, and that the costs incurred were reasonable and supported by expert testimony.

The appeal was dismissed and the SOA was confirmed.

The appellant, who operates a cattery, appealed seven orders issued by Animal Welfare Services (AWS) under the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, 2019.

The orders were issued upon the return of 39 cats and one dog that had previously been removed due to distress.

The Board found that the animals remained in distress upon their return due to ongoing medical needs and unsanitary living conditions.

The Board confirmed the orders relating to general welfare and specific medical care, but revoked an order requiring the appellant to maintain daily written records for all felines, finding it overly onerous for a sole caretaker.

The appellant requested a reconsideration of a previous Animal Care Review Board decision that reduced a Statement of Account for the boarding of 36 seized dogs.

The appellant argued the Board violated procedural fairness by refusing to issue a summons and made errors of law and fact regarding a purported duty of care, the sale of the dogs, and the reasonableness of boarding costs.

The Board dismissed the request, finding no violation of procedural fairness and concluding that the appellant was attempting to reargue the appeal rather than demonstrating any errors of fact or law.

The appellant appealed a Statement of Account (SOA) for $2,344.60 issued by Animal Welfare Services for veterinary care provided to a dog removed under the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act.

The dog was seized after the owner attempted to remove it from a veterinary hospital against medical advice while it was in critical distress.

The Board found the removal was lawful and necessary, and that the respondent proved the majority of the veterinary costs were reasonable and actual.

The Board varied the SOA to $2,162.88, deducting one unsupported ward fee.

The appellant appealed a Decision to Keep Animal(s) in Care (DTK) and a Statement of Account (SOA) for $1,801.11 issued by Animal Welfare Services after his three cats were removed from his flooded apartment while he was hospitalized.

At the hearing, the appellant conceded he could not currently house the cats, and the Board confirmed the DTK.

However, based on the appellant's credible testimony regarding his severe financial hardship, ongoing health issues, and unhoused status, the Board revoked the SOA in full.

The appellants appealed a compliance order issued by an Animal Welfare Services inspector requiring them to take their dog, Hera, for a follow-up veterinary assessment.

The inspector issued the order because it was unclear whether the appellants had complied with previous veterinary recommendations regarding the dog's skin issues.

The Animal Care Review Board confirmed the order, finding that the inspector had reasonable grounds to believe the dog was in distress at the time the order was issued, as proper care includes appropriate medical care and the inspector could not confirm if the recommended follow-up assessment had occurred.

The appellant appealed a Statement of Account totaling $166,937.62 for veterinary and boarding costs incurred after 34 dogs were removed from her care by Animal Welfare Services.

The appellant argued that the veterinary care was unnecessary, the boarding facilities were sub-standard, and the respondent unreasonably prevented the sale of the dogs.

The Animal Care Review Board found that the boarding costs were reasonable and that the respondent did not prevent the sale of the dogs.

However, the Board reduced the veterinary costs by $2,853.05 for duplicative vaccinations and $4,095.90 for an un-itemized mobile clinic fee.

The Statement of Account was varied to $159,988.67.

The appellants appealed a Compliance Order issued by an Animal Welfare Services inspector requiring them to have their dogs and kitten examined by a veterinarian.

The inspector had observed the animals in a state of distress, including low body weight.

The Animal Care Review Board confirmed the Compliance Order, finding the inspector had reasonable grounds to believe the animals were in distress.

The Board also declined to order the Minister to reimburse the appellants for the veterinary costs incurred in complying with the order.

The appellant appealed notices of removal and decisions to keep 33 cats and 3 dogs in the care of the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector, as well as a statement of account for boarding costs.

The parties reached a resolution during the hearing.

The Board issued a consent order reflecting the parties' agreement that the animals would be returned to the appellant following an inspection, the statement of account would be revoked with the right to reissue, and boarding costs would cease to accrue.

The applicants brought a motion for a stay of a Divisional Court order, pending determination of their motion for leave to appeal.

The Divisional Court had dismissed their judicial review of an Animal Care Board decision approving costs for animal care.

The applicants sought the stay to prevent forfeiture of animals due to unpaid accounts.

The Court of Appeal applied the RJR-MacDonald test for stays, combined with principles for leave to appeal from Sault Dock Co. Ltd. The court found no serious issue to be tried, no irreparable harm (as the animals had already been forfeited), and that the balance of convenience did not favour a stay.

The motion was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the respondent.