Dr. Stephanie Dam

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, who operates a cattery, appealed seven orders issued by Animal Welfare Services (AWS) under the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, 2019.

The orders were issued upon the return of 39 cats and one dog that had previously been removed due to distress.

The Board found that the animals remained in distress upon their return due to ongoing medical needs and unsanitary living conditions.

The Board confirmed the orders relating to general welfare and specific medical care, but revoked an order requiring the appellant to maintain daily written records for all felines, finding it overly onerous for a sole caretaker.