Dr. Gary Halbert

The appellant appealed a Statement of Account (SOA) issued by the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector for $10,435.34, covering the costs of care, boarding, and veterinary services for four horses removed from her property.

The Board first determined that the SOA was validly issued under s. 35(1) of the PAWS Act, finding that liability attaches to the person who was the owner or custodian at the time the costs were incurred, even if the animals were later forfeited or euthanized.

The Board confirmed the SOA in full, preferring the evidence of the respondent's veterinarians regarding the necessity and reasonableness of the care provided.

The appellant's request for costs was dismissed.

The appellant appealed an order issued by an animal welfare inspector requiring her to provide veterinary dental care, pain medication, and additional wind protection for her four geriatric horses.

The Board found that the horses were in distress regarding their dental health and a leg injury, accepting the veterinarian's evidence that dental irregularities hindered nutrient absorption and the leg injury required pain medication.

However, the Board found that the horses were not in distress regarding shelter, as the appellant provided credible evidence of adequate natural and constructed windbreaks on the property that the inspectors were unaware of.

The appeal was allowed in part, and the order was modified to remove the requirement for additional wind protection.