Dr. Bruce Robertson

The appellant appealed a Statement of Account issued by the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector for boarding, veterinary, and animal care costs related to her removed cats.

The appellant argued the costs were unreasonable, included errors, and that she lacked the financial means to pay.

The Animal Care Review Board found that the majority of the costs were actually incurred and reasonable, relying on expert veterinary evidence.

The Board deducted a cold storage fee and unsupported tax charges, but declined to reduce the account based on ability to pay, noting the appellant's history of animal removals and lack of insight.

The Statement of Account was varied to $18,300.35.

The appellant appealed a Statement of Account for veterinary costs incurred by the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector after a sick puppy was removed from her care.

The appellant argued she was not the owner and could not afford the costs.

The Board found the appellant had sufficient custody and control of the puppy to be held responsible for the costs, and that the costs were reasonable and actually incurred.

However, considering the appellant's financial hardship as a new, unemployed mother, the Board varied the Statement of Account, reducing the amount owed by 75 percent.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Removal, a Decision to Keep in Care, and a Statement of Account issued by Animal Welfare Services regarding her eight dogs.

The animals were removed following an inspection that alleged unsanitary conditions, lack of water, and insufficient space.

The Animal Care Review Board found that the dogs were not in distress at the time of removal, noting evidence that they were provided with adequate water, space, and care.

The Board also found no reasonable grounds to keep the dogs in care, relying on expert veterinary testimony that any medical issues could have been addressed through orders rather than removal.

The Board ordered the dogs returned to the appellant and revoked the $13,934.44 Statement of Account.

Cattle farmers sought leave to proceed with claims against the Crown and Animal Welfare Services officers for misfeasance in public office, breach of duty of care, abuse of process, intentional interference with economic relations, and defamation arising from the removal of approximately half their herd.

The court granted leave for misfeasance in public office, breach of duty of care, and abuse of process, finding sufficient evidence of bad faith and recklessness based on the Animal Care Review Board's findings that the removal process failed to comply with statutory standards and was not necessary to relieve animal distress.

Leave was denied for intentional interference with economic relations due to inadequate pleading, and leave was not required for defamation.

The appellant appealed an order issued by Animal Welfare Services requiring her 13-year-old dog to undergo a full dental assessment under anesthesia, including necessary extractions and scaling.

The appellant argued the procedure was unnecessary and risky due to the dog's age, proposing instead to manage the condition with antibiotics and pain medication.

The Animal Care Review Board confirmed the order, finding that the dog was in distress due to severe untreated periodontal disease and that the appellant's proposed palliative care was not adequate or appropriate medical attention to relieve the distress.

The appellant appealed the removal of his dog and the subsequent decision to keep the dog in care by Animal Welfare Services.

The dog was removed due to a severe, untreated eye condition that a veterinarian advised required immediate care to alleviate distress.

The Board found that the dog was in distress and that removal was necessary.

The Board also upheld the decision to keep the dog in care, finding reasonable grounds to believe the dog would be placed in distress if returned, given the appellant's failure to recognize the dog's medical needs and the unsanitary living conditions.

The appellant appealed a Statement of Account issued by Animal Welfare Services for veterinary and boarding costs incurred after his cat was removed due to non-compliance with an animal welfare order.

The adjudicator found that the costs were reasonable and necessary to relieve the animal's distress.

However, based on evidence of the appellant's acquired brain injury and extremely low income, the adjudicator varied the Statement of Account, reducing the amount owed by 90 percent due to financial hardship.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector to keep her flock of approximately 40 sheep in care.

The sheep had been removed after the appellant failed to comply with an order to provide adequate feed and veterinary care.

Veterinary evidence established that the sheep were suffering from severe starvation, anemia, and a high parasite load due to prolonged neglect.

The Animal Care Review Board found that the inspector had reasonable grounds to believe it was necessary to keep the sheep in care to relieve their distress and that they would likely be placed back in distress if returned to the appellant, given her failure to recognize their dire health condition and unwillingness to change her husbandry practices.

The appeal was dismissed.

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 Decision to Keep and a Statement of Account issued by Animal Welfare Services after his dog was removed for failing to comply with an order to seek veterinary care for an eye condition.

The Board found that it was necessary to keep the dog in care to relieve its distress and ensure it received required surgery.

Although the dog had already been forfeited to the Crown due to a subsequent unappealed Statement of Account, the Board reviewed the initial Statement of Account.

The Board reduced the veterinary emergency fees to align with the provincial fee guide and further reduced the total amount payable to $160.00 based on the appellant's limited ability to pay.

The appellant appealed a compliance order, the removal of 193 animals (including horses, cattle, sheep, emus, and birds), and a statement of account for $45,063.32 issued by Animal Welfare Services.

The Board found that the animals were in distress due to lack of proper food, water, and sanitary living conditions, and that removal was necessary to alleviate their distress.

The Board confirmed the compliance order, declined to order the return of the animals, and varied the statement of account to $43,684.44 after deducting certain transportation costs.

The appellant appealed the removal of her dog, a decision to keep the dog in care, and a statement of account issued by Animal Welfare Services.

The dog was removed after the appellant failed to comply with orders to have the dog re-examined by a veterinarian and to stop tethering the dog outdoors.

The Board found that the dog was in distress at the time of removal, that removal and keeping the dog in care were necessary to alleviate distress, and that the respondent had reasonable grounds to believe the dog would be placed in distress if returned.

The statement of account for veterinary and boarding costs was confirmed.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Removal issued by Animal Welfare Services (AWS) after 47 dogs were removed from his property.

AWS executed a search warrant and found the dogs living in unsanitary, poorly lit, and inadequately ventilated conditions with high ammonia levels.

A veterinarian certified that the dogs were in distress and required removal.

The Animal Care Review Board found that the dogs were in distress under the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act and that their removal was necessary to alleviate that distress.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector to keep 14 horses in care after they were removed from her property.

The horses were seized following multiple compliance orders regarding inadequate shelter and muddy paddock conditions.

The only barn on the property was subject to a municipal order prohibiting its use.

The Animal Care Review Board dismissed the appeal, finding that returning the horses would place them in distress due to the ongoing lack of viable shelter and failure to improve the ground conditions.

The appellant appealed a Statement of Account issued by Animal Welfare Services (AWS) following the removal of 14 cats from her home.

AWS had entered the home without a warrant, citing critical distress, and subsequently kept the cats in boarding for months without making a formal decision to keep them in care under s. 31(6) of the PAWS Act.

The Animal Care Review Board found that while the removal was authorized, the warrantless entry was not, as inspectors failed to consider obtaining a telewarrant.

The Board also ruled that AWS cannot keep animals in care without a formal decision, as this deprives owners of their appeal rights.

Consequently, the Board varied the Statement of Account to $2,814.88, striking all boarding costs, and ordered the return of the cats subject to strict conditions.

The appellant appealed the removal of 11 dogs, one kitten, and one rabbit from her premises by Animal Welfare Services, as well as the statements of account for their care.

The animals were removed under a warrant after a veterinarian assessed them as being in distress due to poor living conditions, malnutrition, and physical abuse.

The Animal Care Review Board found the testimony of the inspectors and veterinarians credible and concluded the animals were in distress at the time of removal.

The Board confirmed the removal, upheld the statements of account, and declined to order the return of the animals.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector to keep his two dogs after they were removed due to distress.

The dogs were removed following video evidence of the appellant repeatedly hitting and kicking them.

The appellant argued his actions were based on a misunderstanding of dog training videos and sought the return of the dogs, offering to undergo training.

The Animal Care Review Board declined to order the return of the dogs, finding reasonable grounds to believe they would be placed in distress if returned, as they would recognize the appellant as their abuser and the appellant lacked an intuitive comprehension of a dog's needs.

The appellant appealed the removal of nine horses from her property by Animal Welfare Services and the associated statements of account.

The Animal Care Review Board found that the horses were in distress due to lack of proper care, food, and shelter, and that their removal was warranted under the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act.

The Board declined to order the return of the remaining horses because the appellant had not fully complied with a prior compliance order and the horses were still receiving treatment.

The Board varied the first statement of account to $13,284.35 and confirmed the second statement of account at $11,587.21.

The appellant appealed the removal of her cat by Animal Welfare Services.

The cat had an advanced sarcoma on its foot, which was necrotic and discharging.

The appellant had refused amputation or euthanasia, opting for palliative care with leftover medication.

The Board found that the cat was in distress at the time of removal and that the inspector had the authority to remove it based on a veterinarian's certificate.

Although the cat's leg was subsequently amputated, the Board found it was still in distress due to the need for ongoing post-operative care.

The Board declined to return the cat to the appellant, finding she was unable to adequately provide the necessary care.

The appellants appealed compliance orders issued by Animal Welfare Services regarding the care of approximately 240 sled dogs and 14 horses at their commercial dog sledding and horse-riding facilities.

The Board confirmed the orders relating to the dogs' tether lengths and shelter insulation, finding they did not meet the minimum standards under the Regulation, but varied the order regarding dog house dimensions.

The Board revoked the orders relating to the horses, finding they had adequate natural shelter and no statutory requirement for bedding existed.

The appellants' argument that the inspection warrants violated section 8 of the Charter was dismissed, as the inspectors did not search any dwellings and were authorized to inspect the commercial operation.