Dr. Ian Welch

The appellant appealed two Statements of Account issued by Animal Welfare Services for the costs of boarding, veterinary care, and animal care for cats and dogs removed from her care.

The appellant did not attend the hearing.

The Board found that the costs in the first Statement of Account were reasonable, except for costs incurred after the animals were forfeited to the Crown and an unexplained locksmith invoice, reducing the amount by $2,550.98.

The Board confirmed the second Statement of Account in full, ordering the appellant to pay a total of $128,776.44.

The appellant appealed a Statement of Account (SOA) issued by Animal Welfare Services for boarding and veterinary costs incurred after her diabetic cat was removed due to lack of medical treatment.

The appellant argued she could not afford the treatment at the time but her financial situation had since improved.

The Animal Care Review Board found the costs were reasonable, necessary, and fell below standard veterinary fee guidelines.

The Board confirmed the SOA in the amount of $6,230.33, finding no basis to reduce it given the appellant's improved financial circumstances.

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 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 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 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 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 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.