Jason Kirsh

The appellant appealed a decision by the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector to keep her removed animals (a horse, pigs, poultry, and waterfowl) in care, and appealed the associated Statement of Account for boarding and veterinary costs.

The Animal Care Review Board found that the respondent did not have reasonable grounds to believe the pigs, poultry, and waterfowl would be in distress if returned, as the appellant had made significant improvements to their conditions.

However, the Board upheld the decision to keep the horse in care, finding the appellant failed to demonstrate an ability to provide the necessary nutrition for the horse to gain weight.

The Board also varied the Statement of Account from $8,872.45 to $5,599.15, reducing the boarding rates for the pigs and removing unnecessary veterinary examination fees.

The appellant appealed a Statement of Account (SOA) issued by Animal Welfare Services for boarding and veterinary costs incurred after her dog was removed due to health concerns.

The Animal Care Review Board found that the respondent met its evidentiary burden to prove the costs were reasonable and necessary to relieve the animal's distress.

The appellant failed to prove the SOA should be revoked.

The Board confirmed the SOA in the amount of $922.08.

The applicants brought a motion for a stay of a Divisional Court order, pending determination of their motion for leave to appeal.

The Divisional Court had dismissed their judicial review of an Animal Care Board decision approving costs for animal care.

The applicants sought the stay to prevent forfeiture of animals due to unpaid accounts.

The Court of Appeal applied the RJR-MacDonald test for stays, combined with principles for leave to appeal from Sault Dock Co. Ltd. The court found no serious issue to be tried, no irreparable harm (as the animals had already been forfeited), and that the balance of convenience did not favour a stay.

The motion was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the respondent.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Removal issued by Animal Welfare Services (AWS) after 47 dogs were removed from his property.

AWS executed a search warrant and found the dogs living in unsanitary, poorly lit, and inadequately ventilated conditions with high ammonia levels.

A veterinarian certified that the dogs were in distress and required removal.

The Animal Care Review Board found that the dogs were in distress under the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act and that their removal was necessary to alleviate that distress.

The appeal was dismissed.

The moving party sought a stay of an Animal Care Review Board decision pending her application for judicial review.

The Board had confirmed the removal of 41 cats from her home and a statement of account for their care.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for a stay, finding the issue moot because the animals had already been forfeited to the Crown by operation of statute due to non-payment of the statement of account.

Furthermore, the moving party failed to file an affidavit demonstrating irreparable harm or that the balance of convenience favoured a stay.

The appellant appealed two Statements of Account (SOAs) issued by Animal Welfare Services for the costs of boarding and veterinary care for 43 cats removed from her home due to distress and non-compliance with previous orders.

The appellant argued the costs were unreasonable and unnecessary.

The Animal Care Review Board found that the respondent met its initial evidentiary burden to show the costs were incurred for necessaries to relieve the cats' distress and were reasonable.

The appellant failed to prove the SOAs should be varied or revoked.

The Board confirmed both SOAs, ordering the appellant to pay a total of $24,970.01.

The appellant appealed Notices of Removal, Decisions to Keep, and a Compliance Order issued by Animal Welfare Services regarding dozens of cats kept in her home.

The Board found that the removals were necessary to alleviate distress, as the home was unsanitary, past compliance orders were ignored, and a veterinarian certified the need for removal.

The Board also upheld the decision to keep the cats in care, finding reasonable grounds to believe they would return to distress if returned, and upheld the order requiring litter substrate for the remaining cats.

The appellant appealed a Statement of Account in the amount of $22,191.97 issued by Animal Welfare Services for the costs of providing necessaries to 40 cats removed from her home.

The appellant argued the costs were unreasonable and included cats that did not belong to her.

The Animal Care Review Board found that the respondent met its initial evidentiary burden to show the costs were reasonable and incurred for necessaries, while the appellant failed to provide persuasive evidence to vary or revoke the statement.

The Board confirmed the Statement of Account and ordered the appellant to pay the full amount.

The appellant, an ODSP recipient, appealed three Social Benefits Tribunal decisions upholding the denial of funding for medical cannabis.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error of law.

The Director had no discretion to fund medical cannabis because it lacks a Drug Identification Number (DIN) and is not listed on the Ontario Drug Benefit formulary.

The Tribunal correctly concluded it lacked jurisdiction to grant Charter remedies and that the appellant's Human Rights Code discrimination claim had no reasonable prospect of success, as the denial of funding applied equally to all ODSP recipients.

The appellants appealed a Statement of Account issued by the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector for over $1.1 million relating to the removal and care of over 200 dogs from their dog sledding business.

The Animal Care Review Board found that the respondent bears the initial evidentiary burden to prove the charges reflect actual and reasonable costs for necessaries.

The Board varied the transportation and veterinary costs to $Nil, finding that transportation for removal is not a necessary, the care during transport fell below prescribed standards, and the respondent failed to prove the veterinary costs did not arise from its own care.

The boarding costs were reduced to $505,760 based on a reasonable daily rate of $20 per dog, resulting in a total varied Statement of Account of $505,760.

In an appeal of a $1.1 million Statement of Account related to the removal of over 200 dogs, the parties brought several preliminary motions.

The Board granted the Respondent's motion to call more than three expert witnesses, finding that the treating veterinarians were 'participant experts' exempt from strict expert report rules.

The Board also granted the Appellants' motions for further disclosure regarding the removal and care of the dogs, and permitted the Appellants' veterinarian to inspect the remaining living dogs subject to specific conditions.

The Chief Animal Welfare Inspector sought judicial review of two decisions by the Animal Care Review Board that varied statements of account for animal care to zero.

The Inspector undertook not to seek recovery of the funds or return of the animals, rendering the live dispute moot.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, declining to hear it on the basis that the Inspector had not exhausted adequate alternative remedies, specifically the Board's internal reconsideration process.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his habeas corpus application, arguing his detention was unlawful due to a new information adding charges without a new arrest and the failure to hold timely detention review hearings under s. 525 of the Criminal Code.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial court maintained jurisdiction over the appellant despite the new information, as he was lawfully before the court.

It further affirmed that the failure to hold a s. 525 detention review hearing does not automatically render detention unlawful; the appropriate remedy is an immediate review, which the appellant was offered and eventually received.

The court also found no abuse of process justifying a stay of proceedings.

The appellants appealed the removal of over 200 dogs from their dog sledding business properties by Animal Welfare Services.

The dogs were removed following non-compliance with previous orders regarding tether lengths and dog house conditions.

The Board found that while some puppies were not in distress and must be returned immediately, the majority of the dogs were in distress due to inadequate tether lengths, lack of insulation, and poor state of repair of their shelters.

The Board ordered the return of the remaining dogs subject to the appellants achieving compliance with specific standards of care, including three-metre tethers and insulated dog houses.

The appellants run a dog sledding business from which over 200 dogs were removed by the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector.

The appellants brought a motion seeking the return of the dogs or a stay, based on the respondent's redaction of boarding facility and veterinarian information from disclosure on the grounds of public interest litigation privilege.

The Board found the redacted information was not protected by privilege, noting it had been disclosed in previous cases.

The Board ordered the respondent to provide the unredacted information to the appellants' counsel, subject to an undertaking not to release it to anyone else, including the appellants.

The Chief Animal Welfare Inspector (CAWI) brought motions to strike certain grounds of appeal raised by the appellants regarding the removal of over 200 dogs.

The CAWI sought to strike grounds relating to the conduct of inspectors during the removal and alleged Charter violations, arguing the Animal Care Review Board lacks jurisdiction over these matters.

The Board granted the motion to strike the grounds relating to inspector conduct, finding it has no jurisdiction to oversee inspector conduct under the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act.

The Board also determined it is not a court of competent jurisdiction under s. 24(1) of the Charter and struck the appellants' Charter arguments.

However, the Board dismissed the CAWI's request to preclude the appellants from calling evidence on issues from previous proceedings, finding that res judicata and issue estoppel did not apply because the issues in dispute were not identical.

The appellants, operators of a dog sledding and horse-riding business, appealed the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector's removal of over 200 dogs from their properties.

The appellants brought a motion seeking the return of the dogs and dismissal of the proceedings, or alternatively an interim stay, alleging untimely and incomplete disclosure by the respondent.

The Animal Care Review Board dismissed the motion, finding insufficient evidence of outstanding disclosure and concluding that the appellants failed to demonstrate actual prejudice to their ability to make full answer and defence.

The appellants, operators of a dog sledding business, brought a motion seeking the return of over 200 dogs removed by the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector or a stay of the removal orders.

They argued the search warrants leading to the removal were based on misleading Information to Obtain (ITOs).

The Animal Care Review Board dismissed the motion, finding it constituted an impermissible collateral attack on the Ontario Court of Justice, which issued the warrants.

The appellants, who run a dog sledding business, had over 200 dogs removed by the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector.

They brought a motion seeking the return of the dogs or a stay of the removal orders, arguing that a reasonable apprehension of bias existed because the Animal Care Review Board filed a factum in a related judicial review proceeding before the Divisional Court.

The adjudicator dismissed the motion, finding that the Board's factum did not demonstrate aggressive partisanship and that the test for a reasonable apprehension of bias applies to the individual decision-maker, not the entire tribunal.

The appellants, who run a dog sledding business, had over 200 dogs removed by the respondent Chief Animal Welfare Inspector due to alleged non-compliance with previous orders.

The appellants brought a motion seeking to inspect the dogs, arguing they needed to take their own measurements and expressing concern over the dogs' welfare after three dogs died in the respondent's care.

The Animal Care Review Board found it had jurisdiction to order an inspection under Rule 9.3(d) because the respondent intended to rely on measurements taken during the removal.

However, the Board declined to order the inspection, finding it would not be proportionate or efficient to inspect over 200 dogs for measurements, and noting that the appellants' welfare concerns would be addressed by a separate disclosure order.