Gaelin O’Grady

The OSPCA removed 71 dogs from the appellants' property, alleging they were in distress due to overcrowding, unsanitary conditions, and lack of veterinary care.

The appellants, who operated a dog rescue, appealed the removal, arguing the dogs were healthy and any distress was caused by the OSPCA.

The Animal Care Review Board found that the dogs were indeed in distress due to severe overcrowding, high parasite loads, overgrown contaminants, and untreated medical and dental conditions.

The Board concluded that the removal was necessary to relieve the distress.

The Board ordered the dogs returned subject to strict conditions, including reducing overcrowding, sanitizing the environment, and providing necessary veterinary care.

The appellants were also ordered to pay over $378,000 in veterinary and boarding costs incurred by the OSPCA.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Animal Care Review Board that had found a compliance order invalid for three dogs and required the appellant to reimburse veterinary costs.

The Superior Court held that under s. 18(4) of the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act the appeal is a new hearing conducted de novo, not a review of the Board’s decision.

The court declined to determine whether the Board had jurisdiction under s. 24(1) of the Charter because the constitutional issue was not properly raised and the respondent did not participate.

After hearing unopposed evidence from animal welfare officers and a veterinarian, the court found there were reasonable grounds to believe the dogs were in distress and that the compliance order was justified.

The Board’s order requiring reimbursement of veterinary expenses was rescinded.