Inspector Tracy Lapping

The appellant appealed a decision of the Animal Care Review Board confirming the removal of her horses and a goat by the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (OSPCA) due to chronic distress.

The Superior Court of Justice conducted a new hearing and found that the animals were in distress, lacking proper food, water, and veterinary care, and that the appellant had failed to comply with previous OSPCA orders.

The court upheld the removal and ordered the appellant to pay $62,554.53 in maintenance costs, deducting the costs for two horses that were mistakenly omitted from the removal notice.

The appellant appealed the removal of 24 horses and a goat from her farm by the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (OSPCA).

The OSPCA had issued several orders requiring the appellant to provide adequate food, water, hoof care, and veterinary treatment for the animals, which were found to be in poor body condition.

After multiple extensions and the appellant's failure to secure veterinary care, the OSPCA executed a warrant with a veterinarian who concluded the animals were in distress due to inadequate nutrition, lack of water, and lack of dental care.

The Animal Care Review Board found that the animals were properly removed in accordance with section 14(1) of the OSPCA Act.

The Board ordered that the healthy animals be returned subject to strict conditions, while the animals requiring ongoing medical care remain with the OSPCA at the appellant's expense.

The appellant was also ordered to pay $17,389.61 for the costs of care incurred to date.

The appellant appealed an order issued by the OSPCA requiring him to provide daily turnout or exercise for three stallions returned to his farm.

The OSPCA issued the order because the farm lacked a turnout paddock, arguing the horses would be deprived of exercise and thus in distress.

The Animal Care Review Board revoked the order, finding that Section 13(1) of the OSPCA Act requires an animal to be in actual distress at the time an order is issued, not 'deemed' or 'future' distress.

The Board concluded there was no evidence the healthy stallions were in distress when the order was issued, noting that walking in-hand is an acceptable form of exercise and the horses were only at the farm temporarily.

The Board also found it lacked jurisdiction to compel the appellant to disclose the current location of the horses.