Dr. Robertson

The appellant appealed a Notice of Removal issued by Animal Welfare Services regarding five rabbits removed from his property.

The respondent brought a motion to dismiss the appeal on the basis of mootness, arguing the rabbits had been automatically forfeited to the Crown under s. 35(4) of the PAWS Act because the appellant failed to pay or appeal the Statement of Account within the prescribed timelines.

The Animal Care Review Board granted the motion, finding that the forfeiture was final and irreversible, rendering the appeal moot as the rabbits could not be returned.

The Board declined to exercise its discretion to hear the moot appeal, noting the lack of an adversarial context or special circumstances.

The appellant appealed a decision by Animal Welfare Services to keep her dog in care and a Statement of Account for veterinary and boarding costs.

The dog was seized after the appellant left a veterinary clinic without paying for emergency surgery due to financial constraints.

The Board found that it was not necessary to keep the dog in care to alleviate distress post-surgery, and there were no reasonable grounds to believe the dog would be placed in distress if returned.

The Board ordered the dog returned to the appellant and varied the Statement of Account from $4,064.28 to $3,305.01 by deducting duplicate charges, unproven medication costs, and boarding fees incurred after the dog should have been returned.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review of the accused's disposition following a finding of not criminally responsible for assault.

The accused, diagnosed with schizophrenia and substance use disorder, had experienced relapses into substance use while in the community.

Relying on uncontroverted expert evidence and a joint submission, the Board found the accused remains a significant threat to public safety due to a lack of insight and risk of decompensation if unsupervised.

The Board ordered the continuation of a Detention Order, modified to permit the accused to live in supervised accommodation approved by the hospital.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Removal issued by Animal Welfare Services after her dog was removed due to allegations of physical and psychological abuse.

The Animal Care Review Board found that the dog was in distress at the time of removal, supported by eyewitness accounts of the appellant striking the dog and expert veterinary testimony regarding the psychological impacts of caregiver abuse.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed the decision of the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector to remove and keep her animals (dogs, a cat, and a rabbit) and the associated statement of account.

The animals were removed following an investigation prompted by complaints about their living conditions.

The Animal Care Review Board found that there were no reasonable grounds to believe the animals were in distress on the day of the investigation, noting they were well-fed, hydrated, and generally in good health.

The Board revoked the decisions to remove and keep the animals, revoked the statement of account, and ordered the animals returned to the appellant.

The appellant appealed compliance orders, a notice of removal, and statements of account issued by Animal Welfare Services regarding poultry, waterfowl, and rabbits on her farm.

The Board found the initial inspection lawful under the PAWS Act.

The Board confirmed the removal of the animals was justified due to distress caused by cold stress, unsanitary conditions, and lack of proper care.

Statement of Account #2 was confirmed, and Statement of Account #3 was slightly varied.

The compliance order for the remaining birds was confirmed with an extended compliance date.

The appellant appealed several compliance orders, the removal of over 70 cats from her home, and multiple Statements of Account issued by Animal Welfare Services.

The Animal Care Review Board found that the first removal of 38 cats was justified due to severe distress caused by unsanitary conditions and high ammonia levels.

However, the Board found insufficient evidence to justify the second removal of 32 cats.

The Board varied the Statements of Account, striking out boarding costs due to lack of evidentiary support, reducing the total to $20,768.48.

The Board ordered the return of four older cats, subject to the appellant paying their proportionate share of the costs, with the remaining cats to be forfeited if the balance is not paid.

The appellant appealed the removal of a calf and the associated statement of account under the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, 2019.

The Animal Care Review Board found that the calf was in distress due to a colostrum deficiency and inappropriate living conditions, justifying its removal.

The Board declined to return the calf to the appellant, finding that doing so would place the animal in distress given the appellant's failure to acknowledge the calf's health issues or improve its living conditions.

The statement of account for veterinary and boarding fees was confirmed as reasonable.

The appellants appealed the dismissal of their motion to certify a class proceeding involving product liability claims against the manufacturers of an inferior vena cava (IVC) filter.

The Divisional Court upheld the motion judge's finding that the pleadings failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action for defective design because they did not identify a specific alternative design.

However, the court allowed the appeal in part, finding that regulatory advisories provided 'some basis in fact' to certify the common issue of whether the defendants breached their duty to warn learned intermediaries of the risks associated with the filters.

Following the dismissal of an appeal regarding the removal of animals under the OSPCA Act, the successful respondent sought partial indemnity costs of $46,561.99.

The court considered the factors under Rule 57.01 and section 131 of the Courts of Justice Act, balancing the respondent's success against the appellant's self-represented status and the financial burden of the maintenance fees.

The court fixed costs at $25,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

Appeal involving failed arm's length negotiations between mining companies over possible joint development of gold properties in the Hemlo area.

The respondent disclosed confidential geological information and its acquisition plans for an adjacent patented property during negotiations; the appellant then used that information to acquire the property for itself.

A majority held that the appellant breached a duty of confidence, and the Court upheld the constructive trust remedy requiring transfer of the property, subject to compensation for improvements.

The decision contains major reasons on the distinction between breach of confidence and fiduciary duty, and on the availability of constructive trust as a restitutionary remedy.