Dr. J. Bruce Robertson

The appellant appealed a Statement of Account totaling $11,245.09 issued by Animal Welfare Services for boarding and veterinary costs incurred after her animals were removed due to distress.

The animals had been left alone in unsanitary conditions.

The Board found the costs were justified, reasonable, and necessary to relieve the animals' distress.

The appellant failed to provide sufficient documentary evidence to substantiate her claim of an inability to pay.

The Statement of Account was confirmed.

The appellant appealed a Statement of Account issued by the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector for veterinary and boarding costs related to the removal of his dog.

The Board found that while the dog was in distress and removal was justified, the respondent failed to provide sufficient evidence to substantiate the veterinary costs and the full duration of the boarding costs.

The Statement of Account was varied, reducing veterinary costs to zero and boarding costs to $405.00.

The appellant appealed the removal of his dog by Animal Welfare Services following a complaint of physical abuse.

The Board reviewed video evidence showing the appellant physically abusing the dog and accepted expert veterinary evidence that the dog was in physical and psychological distress.

The Board found the removal was lawful and necessary to alleviate distress.

The Board further held that the conditions causing the removal had not ceased to exist, as returning the dog would cause additional psychological distress, and dismissed the appeal for the dog's return.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Removal issued by Animal Welfare Services after five dogs were removed from his residence.

The dogs were removed following complaints and video evidence showing the appellant repeatedly striking the dogs, which an expert veterinarian concluded caused physical and psychological distress.

The Animal Care Review Board found that the dogs were in distress at the time of removal and that the removal was necessary and lawful.

The Board dismissed the appeal and ordered that the dogs not be returned to the appellant.

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 appellants appealed an order issued by an animal welfare inspector under the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, 2019, requiring them to have their 16-year-old dog examined by a veterinarian.

The inspector observed the dog to be overweight, struggling to stand, and having sores and respiratory issues.

The Board accepted the expert veterinary evidence that the dog was likely suffering from osteoarthritis and was in distress.

The Board confirmed the order, finding that the inspector had reasonable grounds to believe the dog was in distress and that a veterinary examination was necessary, but modified the compliance dates to allow additional time.