Dr. Pauline Delnatte

The appellant appealed a Decision to Keep (DTK) 14 exotic animals in care and a Statement of Account (SOA) issued by the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector.

The Animal Care Review Board found that the animals were in distress at the time of the DTK and that the appellant lacked the necessary daily care plans, veterinary relationships, and adequate enclosures to ensure the animals would not be returned to distress.

The Board denied the appeal of the DTK and confirmed the revised SOA in the amount of $11,709.69 for the costs of boarding and veterinary care.

The appellant appealed the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector's decision to keep a tiger cub and a spotted hyena in its care and applied for their return.

The animals were removed due to concerns about their diet, enclosures, daily routines, and social groupings.

The Animal Care Review Board found that the animals were in distress due to inadequate care and that the appellant's proposed changes were insufficient to meet the species-specific needs of the animals.

The appeal and application for return were dismissed.

The appellant appealed the removal of 29 domestic and exotic animals from her property by Animal Welfare Services, as well as the decision to keep the animals in care, and applied for their return.

The Animal Care Review Board found that the animals were in distress at the time of removal due to inadequate food and water, poor sanitary conditions, insufficient enclosure space, hazardous conditions, and untreated medical issues.

The Board accepted expert veterinary evidence that removal was necessary to alleviate the distress.

The Board further held that the respondent had reasonable grounds to keep the animals in care, as several required ongoing medical treatment and the appellant had not demonstrated that the environmental conditions causing the distress had been rectified.

The appeals and the application for return were dismissed.

The appellant appealed the removal of several exotic animals from her home and shed by Animal Welfare Services (AWS).

AWS inspectors and a veterinarian found the animals in distress due to unsanitary conditions, lack of enrichment, and improper housing.

The Animal Care Review Board upheld the removal of two Macaques, a Fennec Fox, two Genets, and a Capuchin, finding they were in distress and their basic and species-specific standards of care were not met.

However, the Board ordered the return of one juvenile Macaque kept inside the home, finding it was adequately cared for and not in distress.

The appellant appealed the removal of 10 exotic animals from her property by Animal Welfare Services, as well as the decision to retain them and two statements of account for their care.

The Animal Care Review Board found that the animals were in distress due to unsanitary conditions, lack of appropriate food and water, and inadequate veterinary care.

The Board dismissed the appeal, denied the application for the return of the animals, and confirmed the statements of account totalling $12,241.39, finding the costs reasonable and necessary.

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.