Hoursa Yazdi

The appellant appealed a Statement of Account issued by the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector for boarding, veterinary, and animal care costs related to her removed cats.

The appellant argued the costs were unreasonable, included errors, and that she lacked the financial means to pay.

The Animal Care Review Board found that the majority of the costs were actually incurred and reasonable, relying on expert veterinary evidence.

The Board deducted a cold storage fee and unsupported tax charges, but declined to reduce the account based on ability to pay, noting the appellant's history of animal removals and lack of insight.

The Statement of Account was varied to $18,300.35.

The appellant appealed the removal of his dog by Animal Welfare Services under the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, 2019.

Following the removal, the appellant was served with a Statement of Account but failed to pay or appeal it within the prescribed timelines, resulting in the dog's automatic forfeiture to the Crown.

The Animal Care Review Board found the appeal moot because it lacked jurisdiction to order the return of a forfeited animal.

Applying the Borowski framework, the Board declined to exercise its discretion to hear the moot appeal, noting the absence of an adversarial context and the need for judicial economy.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Removal regarding her 12 cats, which were removed by Animal Welfare Services.

Subsequently, a Statement of Account was issued for the costs of caring for the cats.

The appellant failed to appeal or pay the Statement of Account within the statutory deadlines, resulting in the cats being forfeited to the Crown under s. 35(4) of the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act.

The respondent moved to dismiss the appeal of the Notice of Removal as moot.

The Board granted the motion, finding it had no jurisdiction to order the return of the cats once they became the property of the Crown.

The applicant sought the return of 37 dogs removed from his care.

The respondent brought a motion to dismiss the application for mootness, arguing the dogs had been forfeited to the Crown under the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, 2019 because the applicant failed to pay two statements of account within the prescribed time.

The Board granted the motion, finding that statutory forfeiture ended the applicant's ownership rights and the Board's jurisdiction to order the return of the animals.

The appellant appealed a Statement of Account (SOA) issued by Animal Welfare Services for $2,402.88, representing veterinary and boarding costs for a dog removed due to non-compliance with an order to provide veterinary care.

The appellant did not dispute the necessity of the care but sought to have the SOA revoked or reduced due to an inability to pay.

The Animal Care Review Board found that the costs incurred were actual and reasonable.

The Board further held that the appellant failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove financial hardship on a balance of probabilities.

The appeal was dismissed and the SOA was confirmed.

The appellant appealed the removal of his dog by Animal Welfare Services.

The appellant failed to attend the rescheduled hearing.

The respondent brought a motion to dismiss the appeal as moot, arguing that the dog had been statutorily forfeited to the Crown under s. 35(4) of the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, 2019, extinguishing the appellant's ownership rights.

The Board applied the Borowski test for mootness, found that it lacked jurisdiction to order the return of the forfeited dog, and declined to exercise its discretion to hear the moot appeal.

The motion was granted and the appeal dismissed.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector to keep her dog, which had been removed due to critical distress.

The respondent brought a motion to dismiss the appeal as moot because the appellant failed to appeal or pay the statement of account within the statutory deadlines, resulting in the dog's automatic forfeiture to the Crown.

The Animal Care Review Board granted the motion, finding it had no jurisdiction to return an animal once forfeited, rendering the appeal moot.

The Board declined to exercise its discretion to hear the moot appeal.

The appellants appealed the removal of 21 horses and subsequent decisions to keep the horses and their newborn colts in the care of the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector, as well as three statements of account for the costs of their care.

The Animal Care Review Board found that the animals were properly removed due to distress caused by ongoing neglect, poor living conditions, and failure to comply with previous orders.

The Board determined the animals would likely be placed in distress if returned and ordered them kept in care.

The Board varied two statements of account to remove transportation costs, confirming the remainder, and ordered the appellants to pay $103,132.31 for the costs of care.