Dr. Tyrrel de Langley

The appellant appealed a Statement of Account issued by the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector for veterinary care costs incurred after her cat was removed to treat a urinary blockage.

The appellant argued the costs were excessive due to a torn urethra during surgery and claimed an inability to pay.

The Animal Care Review Board found the hospital rates were reasonable and the torn urethra was a known complication, not a veterinarian mistake.

The Board varied the Statement of Account from $6,810.76 to $5,037.99, reflecting a reduction requested by the respondent for a second opinion, and found the appellant failed to prove an inability to pay.

The appellant appealed the removal of her three dogs and the subsequent decision to keep them in the care of the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector.

The dogs were found confined in the appellant's van in unsanitary conditions, with high ammonia levels and no access to water.

The Animal Care Review Board found that the dogs were in distress at the time of removal and that returning them to the appellant would likely place them back in distress, given her history of non-compliance with care standards.

The appeals were dismissed and the dogs were ordered to remain in the respondent's care.

The appellant's dog was removed by Animal Welfare Services for non-compliance with an order to seek veterinary care.

The appellant paid the first statement of account but failed to pay or appeal a second statement of account, resulting in the dog's automatic forfeiture to the Crown.

The Board dismissed the appellant's application for the return of the dog and the appeal of the decision to keep the dog in care, finding it lacked jurisdiction due to the forfeiture.

However, the Board heard the appeal of the first statement of account, finding it was not moot, and confirmed the account in full, accepting expert evidence that the veterinary costs were reasonable and necessary.