Danielle Meuleman

The appellant's dog was removed by Animal Welfare Services and a Keep in Care Decision was issued, along with a Statement of Account.

The appellant appealed the Keep in Care Decision but failed to pay the Statement of Account within the prescribed time.

The respondent brought a motion to dismiss the appeal on the basis that the non-payment resulted in the statutory forfeiture of the dog to the Crown.

The Board granted the motion, finding that the forfeiture transferred ownership to the Crown, rendering the appeal moot as the Board no longer had the power to order the dog's return.

The applicants sought judicial review of a decision by the Animal Care Review Board confirming a statement of account for over $1.5 million in care costs for more than 200 seized sled dogs.

The applicants argued the Board erred in its evidentiary findings, including relying on hearsay and failing to make adverse credibility findings.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Board's decision was reasonable as it was based on uncontroverted evidence from the respondent, and the applicants had failed to adduce any evidence or cross-examine the respondent's witness at the hearing.

The appellant appealed a statement of account for the care of dogs removed from her possession.

She brought a motion to modify her grounds of appeal to include issues regarding the lawfulness of the dogs' removal and costs related to specific dogs not included in the statement of account.

The Animal Care Review Board denied the motion, finding that the additional issues had either been resolved in previous settled appeals or were outside the statutory appeal period, and that the Board lacked jurisdiction to hear collateral attacks on previously disposed matters.

The appellant requested a reconsideration of a previous Animal Care Review Board decision that varied a Statement of Account (SOA) for animal boarding and veterinary costs.

The appellant argued the Board erred by not dividing the SOA between his business and his co-appellant's business, as they were responsible for separate dogs.

The Board denied the request, finding that the issue of separate ownership or custodianship was never raised during the original hearing, and a reconsideration is not an avenue to advance new arguments.

The Board also noted it lacks statutory authority to order a precise allocation of an SOA between individuals.

The appellant requested a reconsideration of an Animal Care Review Board decision that confirmed a statement of account for animal care costs in the amount of $37,424.44.

The appellant argued the Tribunal acted outside its jurisdiction, violated procedural fairness, and made errors of law and fact.

The Vice-Chair found no bias, procedural unfairness, or significant errors, except for a minor factual error regarding the date the appellant's liability for care costs ended following the forfeiture of the animals.

The decision was varied to deduct $307.00 for one day of care, resulting in a total payable amount of $37,117.44.

The balance of the reconsideration request was dismissed.

The Appellants appealed a Notice of Removal and a Statement of Account issued by the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector regarding eight dogs removed from their property.

The Animal Care Review Board found that the dogs were in distress at the time of removal due to heat exhaustion, lack of water, and unacceptable housing conditions, and that their removal was necessary.

The Board dismissed the appeal for the return of the dogs, finding insufficient evidence that the conditions causing the distress had been corrected.

The Board varied the Statement of Account for boarding and veterinary costs from $5,149.86 to $5,025.56 to account for a vaccination and heartworm test that had already been administered to one of the dogs.

The appellant appealed decisions by the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector to keep her animals (dogs and a kitten) in care and the associated statements of account for their care.

The animals were removed from the appellant's home due to unsanitary conditions, including garbage, debris, feces, and urine, which placed the animals in distress.

The Animal Care Review Board found that the removal and the decisions to keep the animals in care were justified under the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, 2019.

The Board also confirmed the statements of account, finding the veterinary and care costs to be reasonable and necessary.

The appeals were dismissed.

The appellant appealed a statement of account (SOA) issued by the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector for the costs of boarding and veterinary care for his seized animals, including rabbits, horses, and chickens.

The appellant raised numerous grounds of appeal, including financial hardship, alleged surrender of the animals, and claims that the costs were excessive and disproportionate to the animals' value.

The Animal Care Review Board dismissed the appeal, finding the costs were necessary and reasonable based on the evidence of the boarding facility manager, the inspector, and the respondent's expert veterinarian.

The Board confirmed the SOA in the reduced amount of $37,424.44 and denied the appellant's request for costs.

The moving parties sought a stay of an Animal Care Review Board decision confirming a $1.5 million statement of account issued by Animal Welfare Services for the care of approximately 200 seized dogs.

Without a stay, the dogs would be forfeited to the Crown.

Applying the RJR-MacDonald test, the court found that the balance of convenience favoured the moving parties, as refusing the stay would render related ongoing proceedings moot and destroy their unique herd of dogs.

The motion for a stay pending judicial review was granted.

The appellant requested a reconsideration of an Animal Care Review Board decision that confirmed the removal of his animals and several Statements of Account for their care.

The appellant argued the Board breached procedural fairness by failing to consider his evidence and case law, and made erroneous findings of fact.

The Board dismissed the request, finding it had considered the evidence and law but found them irrelevant or distinguishable, and that any factual errors would not have changed the outcome.

The appellants appealed a Statement of Account in the amount of $1,524,640.00 for the cost of necessaries (boarding) for over 200 sled dogs removed by Animal Welfare Services.

The Board found that the daily boarding rate of $20.00 per dog was reasonable and lower than the actual costs incurred.

The appellants provided no evidence to challenge the costs.

The Board confirmed the Statement of Account in full.

The appellant requested a reconsideration of an Animal Care Review Board decision that confirmed a Statement of Account for $4,696.17 for necessaries provided to his seized animals.

The appellant argued the Board erred in law and fact regarding the surrender of the animals, the respondent's duty to mitigate costs, the effect of a Decision to Keep in Care, and a witness's alleged conflict of interest and perjury.

The Board dismissed the request for reconsideration, finding that the appellant failed to establish any grounds under Rule 18.2 of the Common Rules of Practice and Procedure.

The Board held that the PAWS Act does not impose a duty to mitigate costs, ownership does not transfer upon a Decision to Keep in Care, and the conflict of interest allegations were either fully canvassed at the hearing or based on evidence that could have been obtained earlier.

The appellant appealed a removal order for several animals under the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act.

The appellant failed to appeal the Statement of Account and failed to pay it within the prescribed time, resulting in the forfeiture of the animals to the Crown under s. 35(4) of the Act.

The appellant also failed to attend the hearing.

The Board granted the respondent's motion to dismiss the appeal as moot, finding it had no jurisdiction to order the return of forfeited animals.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Removal issued by Animal Welfare Services (AWS) under the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, which resulted in the removal of several exotic and domestic animals from his zoo.

AWS inspectors and a veterinarian found the animals were kept in a barn with inadequate ventilation, high ammonia levels, and poor sanitary conditions.

The adjudicator dismissed the appeal, finding that the animals were in distress as defined by the Act and that the Notice of Removal was properly issued based on a veterinarian's written advice that removal was necessary to alleviate their distress.

The applicant, an adjacent landowner, sought leave to appeal the Director's decision to issue an Environmental Compliance Approval (ECA) for upgraded sewage works at a neighbouring wedding venue.

The Tribunal found the applicant had standing under s. 38(1) of the Environmental Bill of Rights.

However, the applicant failed to satisfy the leave test under s. 41.

The Tribunal accepted the uncontradicted expert evidence that the upgraded sewage system posed a low risk to the environment and would actually improve upon the existing system.

The application for leave to appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal held Case Management Conferences regarding appeals by the appellants against a Director's Order requiring stormwater management and soil and sediment remediation.

The parties finalized a draft Procedural Order and Issues List.

The Tribunal approved the Procedural Order and Issues List and scheduled a 13-day video hearing to commence on October 11, 2022.

The applicant sought certiorari to quash rulings by Justice Colvin in an ongoing appeal.

The rulings disallowed the applicant's choice of agent (who was not a licensed paralegal or lawyer) and refused an adjournment.

The applicant also sought to remove Justice Colvin and amend the appeal.

The court dismissed the application for certiorari, finding no substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice.

The judge's decision to disqualify the agent was upheld due to the agent's failure to comply with duties and responsibilities, particularly the "trial by ambush" tactic of not providing advance notice.

The refusal to grant an adjournment was also upheld as the applicant should have been prepared to proceed.

The court noted that the substantive appeal had not been heard and could be re-argued before Justice Colvin.

The appellants appealed a Director's Order requiring the removal of waste ash from a church property.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement agreement that varied the compliance dates for the removal of the waste ash and required interim monitoring and capping.

The Environmental Review Tribunal accepted the settlement agreement, finding it consistent with the purpose of the Environmental Protection Act and in the public interest.

The Tribunal directed the amendment of the Director's Order and dismissed the appeals.

The Regional Municipality of Peel applied for costs against the Director of the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change following Peel's successful motion to revoke a Director's Order requiring the removal of waste ash.

Peel argued the Director engaged in unreasonable conduct by issuing the order and opposing the revocation motion.

The Environmental Review Tribunal dismissed the costs application, finding that the Director's conduct in the course of the appeal was not unreasonable, frivolous, vexatious, or in bad faith as required by the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

The moving parties requested to schedule a preliminary motion to revoke a Director's Order requiring the removal of waste ash from a site, to add parties, and to order disclosure.

The Environmental Review Tribunal dismissed the request to schedule the motion, finding that the issues raised required a full hearing to resolve contested facts and that the disclosure requests were either already satisfied or irrelevant.