Dr. Kyle Goldie

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.

The appellant requested a reconsideration of a prior decision that confirmed a Statement of Account and dismissed the application for the return of his dog.

The appellant argued procedural unfairness, errors of fact, reliance on false evidence, and sought to introduce new medical evidence.

The Animal Care Review Board dismissed the request, finding that the appellant had declined additional time for late disclosure, failed to request accommodation, and merely disagreed with the Board's weighing of veterinary evidence.

The Board also found that the allegedly false evidence was not relied upon and the new evidence did not meet the criteria for reconsideration.

The appellant's dog was removed by Animal Welfare Services after video footage showed the appellant repeatedly kicking, throwing, and dragging the dog in the common areas of his apartment building.

The appellant appealed the Statement of Account for veterinary and boarding costs and applied for the return of the dog.

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

The Board confirmed the Statement of Account, finding the costs reasonable and necessary.

The Board dismissed the application for return, concluding the appellant failed to demonstrate that the conditions causing the distress had ceased to exist, as there was no expert evidence of sustained behavioural change.

The appellant appealed a Statement of Account (SOA) for $108,928.64 issued by the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector for the costs of caring for 58 dogs removed from her residence due to unsanitary conditions and distress.

The Board found that the costs for transportation, boarding, and veterinary care were actually incurred and reasonable.

However, considering the appellant's severe financial hardship, mental health challenges, and inability to pay, the Board exercised its discretion to vary the SOA.

The Board reduced the amount to $10,000, balancing the need for owner accountability with the reality of the appellant's financial distress.

The appellant appealed a Statement of Account issued by the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector for $20,938.65 in boarding and veterinary costs related to one adult cat and six kittens.

The adult cat was removed from the appellant's property, and the kittens were born in care.

The Animal Care Review Board found that while the medical care and boarding were necessary and the rates were generally reasonable, the appellant should not be responsible for all costs.

Specifically, the Board deducted costs for the adult cat's medical conditions likely caused by the respondent leaving the cat behind during an initial removal, and for the kittens' upper respiratory infections acquired after two months at the boarding facility.

The Statement of Account was varied to $15,293.95.

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.

The appellants appealed a decision by the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector to keep their dog in care under the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, 2019.

The dog was removed based on a neighbour's allegations of physical abuse.

The Board found the neighbour's testimony lacked credibility and was motivated by an ongoing dispute.

Finding no physical evidence of abuse and accepting the appellants' evidence of proper care, the Board concluded the respondent lacked reasonable grounds to believe the dog would be in distress if returned.

The appeal was allowed and the dog was ordered returned to the appellants.

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.

The appellants appealed a Statement of Account for $13,550.80 issued by the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector for boarding and veterinary costs incurred after 17 animals were removed from their care.

The Board found that the respondent met its evidentiary burden to prove the costs were reasonable and necessary, supported by expert veterinary testimony and invoices.

The appellants failed to provide sufficient evidence of financial hardship to justify varying the account on that basis.

The Board varied the Statement of Account slightly to $13,451.36 to reflect a refund for a different testing method.

The appellant appealed a Decision to Keep in care (DTK) issued by the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector regarding 35 dogs removed from his property.

The Animal Care Review Board found that the dogs were living in unsanitary, hazardous conditions and suffering from untreated medical issues, including chronic eye injuries and parasite infections.

Relying on expert veterinary evidence and the appellant's history of non-compliance with previous orders, the Board concluded it was necessary to keep the dogs in care to relieve their distress and that returning them would place them in further distress.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant applied to the Animal Care Review Board for the return of 33 Boston Terriers removed by Animal Welfare Services due to distress.

The respondent provided extensive veterinary evidence demonstrating the dogs were kept in unsanitary conditions with high ammonia levels and suffered from untreated medical issues, including severe ocular disease and wounds from fighting.

The applicant failed to provide any submissions or evidence to show the conditions causing distress had ceased.

The Board dismissed the application, finding that returning the dogs would place them in distress.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Removal issued by Animal Welfare Services for 33 Boston Terriers.

The dogs were removed after the appellant failed to comply with previous orders requiring veterinary care and improvements to unsanitary and hazardous living conditions.

The Animal Care Review Board found that the dogs were in distress due to a lack of food, water, sanitary living conditions, and necessary veterinary care.

The Board dismissed the appeal, concluding that the removal was necessary to alleviate the dogs' distress.

The appellant appealed several orders, a notice of removal, a decision to keep animals, and a statement of account issued by Animal Welfare Services regarding two horses.

The horses were found to be emaciated and living in hazardous conditions without adequate food or potable water.

The adjudicator found that the horses were in distress and that the appellant failed to comply with the initial orders to provide veterinary care and improve their living conditions.

The removal of the horses was deemed necessary to relieve their distress, and the decision to keep them in care was upheld as returning them would likely place them back in distress.

The statement of account for veterinary and boarding costs was confirmed, and the appellant's request for costs was denied.

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 a Statement of Account (SOA) for $2,344.60 issued by Animal Welfare Services for veterinary care provided to a dog removed under the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act.

The dog was seized after the owner attempted to remove it from a veterinary hospital against medical advice while it was in critical distress.

The Board found the removal was lawful and necessary, and that the respondent proved the majority of the veterinary costs were reasonable and actual.

The Board varied the SOA to $2,162.88, deducting one unsupported ward fee.