8 total
Dog removal for critical distress upheld; veterinary care costs varied due to unreasonable boarding charges.
The appellant appealed a Notice of Removal and a Statement of Account issued by the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector after her dog was removed due to severe Baclofen toxicity.
The Animal Care Review Board found that the dog was in critical distress at the time of removal, justifying the inspector's intervention to provide emergency veterinary care.
However, the Board varied the Statement of Account from $3,859.42 to $2,927.60, finding that some hospitalization and boarding charges exceeded reasonable rates or were incurred after the dog was medically ready for discharge.
Statement of account for care of removed horses confirmed; appellant failed to challenge reasonableness of costs.
The Appellant appealed a Statement of Account issued by Animal Welfare Services for the transportation, boarding, and veterinary care of 16 horses removed from her property.
The Appellant brought preliminary motions to exclude late-filed evidence and for the adjudicator's recusal, both of which were dismissed.
On the merits, the Board found that the Respondent met its burden of proving the costs were actually incurred and reasonable, supported by expert veterinary evidence.
The Appellant failed to provide evidence challenging the costs, focusing instead on the underlying removal of the horses, which was not before the Board.
The Statement of Account was confirmed with a minor reduction.
Reconsideration request dismissed; no procedural unfairness or errors of law found in forfeiture decision.
The applicant requested a reconsideration of a prior Board decision that dismissed her application for the return of 31 cats due to mootness following their forfeiture.
The applicant alleged procedural fairness violations, failure to accommodate her disabilities, and errors regarding the service date of a Statement of Account.
The Board dismissed the reconsideration request, finding that it had not violated procedural fairness, had provided opportunities for accommodation, and had correctly acted within its jurisdiction to determine the service date and statutory forfeiture timelines.
Reconsideration request dismissed; Board lacks jurisdiction to extend statutory deadline for appealing Statement of Account.
The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Board order that dismissed her appeal of a Statement of Account under the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, 2019.
The original appeal was dismissed because it was filed after the prescribed 10-day statutory deadline.
The Board dismissed the reconsideration request, finding that the applicant failed to establish any of the grounds for reconsideration under Rule 18.2, and that the Board had no jurisdiction to accept a late appeal.
Statement of Account for animal care varied to deduct projected costs; application for return of animals dismissed.
The appellants appealed a Statement of Account (SOA) for $29,694.95 issued by Animal Welfare Services for the removal, boarding, and veterinary care of 71 animals, and applied for the return of the 66 surviving animals.
The Animal Care Review Board found that most of the costs were actual and reasonable, supported by expert veterinary evidence, but deducted $8,325.00 in projected boarding costs that had not yet been incurred when the SOA was issued.
The Board varied the SOA to $21,369.95.
The Board dismissed the application for the return of the animals, finding the appellants failed to prove that the conditions causing the animals' distress had ceased to exist at their new property.
Statement of Account for animal care costs varied to reduce unsupported veterinary x-ray charges.
The appellant appealed a Statement of Account (SOA) issued by Animal Welfare Services for boarding and veterinary care provided to her two injured dogs after they were removed due to distress.
The adjudicator found that the respondent met its burden to prove the costs were actual and reasonable, relying on expert veterinary testimony, except for a portion of the digital x-ray charges which lacked sufficient documentation.
The SOA was varied from $2,228.04 to $2,079.49.
Application for return of seized dogs dismissed for lack of jurisdiction following statutory forfeiture.
The Chief Animal Welfare Inspector brought a motion to dismiss the applicant's application for the return of two seized dogs.
The applicant failed to attend the hearing.
The Board found that the dogs had been statutorily forfeited to the Crown under s. 35(4) of the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, 2019, because the applicant failed to appeal or pay the Statement of Account within the prescribed timeframes.
Consequently, the Board concluded it lacked jurisdiction to order the return of the animals and dismissed the application.
Appeals and application for return of dog dismissed as moot following automatic forfeiture to Crown.
The appellant appealed a Notice of Removal and a Decision to Keep in Care regarding her dog, and filed an Application for Return.
However, she failed to appeal or pay the Statement of Account within the statutory deadlines, resulting in the dog being automatically forfeited to the Crown under s. 35(4) of the PAWS Act.
The respondent brought a motion to dismiss the appeals and application.
The appellant did not attend the motion hearing.
The Board granted the motion, finding that it lacked jurisdiction to order the return of the dog following forfeiture, rendering the appeals and application moot.
