Jessica Holroyd

The appellant requested a reconsideration of a Board decision that dismissed his appeal of a Statement of Account for being filed late.

The appellant argued the Board made a jurisdictional error and violated procedural fairness because the notice he received was insufficient and the Board should have considered his reasons for the delay.

The Board found no error in calculating the time to appeal, noting the appellant provided no evidence that the notice was insufficient.

The Board also confirmed it has no statutory authority to extend the 10-day appeal period.

The request for reconsideration was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a Statement of Account issued by the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector for veterinary care costs incurred after her cat was removed to treat a urinary blockage.

The appellant argued the costs were excessive due to a torn urethra during surgery and claimed an inability to pay.

The Animal Care Review Board found the hospital rates were reasonable and the torn urethra was a known complication, not a veterinarian mistake.

The Board varied the Statement of Account from $6,810.76 to $5,037.99, reflecting a reduction requested by the respondent for a second opinion, and found the appellant failed to prove an inability to pay.

The appellant appealed the removal of eight Chihuahua type dogs by an animal welfare inspector under the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, 2019.

The dogs were removed after the appellant failed to comply with three compliance orders requiring veterinary care for puppies exposed to parvovirus and other basic care standards.

The Board found that the dogs were in distress at the time of removal due to the appellant's non-compliance with the orders and the abandonment of the dogs in a vehicle following the appellant's arrest.

The Board concluded that the removal was necessary to alleviate the dogs' distress and declined to order their return.

The self-represented appellant brought a motion seeking an extension of time to file written closing submissions, an increase in the page limit, and an in-person hearing to present the submissions.

The Animal Care Review Board granted the extension of time to accommodate the appellant, but denied the requests for a page limit increase and an in-person hearing, noting that the parties had previously consented to the 5-page limit and written format, and the appellant provided no compelling reasons to alter those terms.

The appellant's dog was removed by Animal Welfare Services for non-compliance with an order to seek veterinary care.

The appellant paid the first statement of account but failed to pay or appeal a second statement of account, resulting in the dog's automatic forfeiture to the Crown.

The Board dismissed the appellant's application for the return of the dog and the appeal of the decision to keep the dog in care, finding it lacked jurisdiction due to the forfeiture.

However, the Board heard the appeal of the first statement of account, finding it was not moot, and confirmed the account in full, accepting expert evidence that the veterinary costs were reasonable and necessary.

The appellant appealed the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector's decision to keep a tiger cub and a spotted hyena in its care and applied for their return.

The animals were removed due to concerns about their diet, enclosures, daily routines, and social groupings.

The Animal Care Review Board found that the animals were in distress due to inadequate care and that the appellant's proposed changes were insufficient to meet the species-specific needs of the animals.

The appeal and application for return were dismissed.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Board decision that confirmed a Statement of Account for $38,007.35 related to the care of his fourteen dogs after they were removed by the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector.

The applicant argued that he had new evidence, including photographs of the dogs' condition upon return, and that he was disadvantaged by not having legal representation at the original hearing.

The Board dismissed the request, finding that the applicant was attempting to relitigate his case, that procedural fairness does not require legal representation, and that the proposed new evidence could have been obtained prior to the original hearing.

The appellant appealed a Statement of Account (SOA) for $108,928.64 issued by the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector for the costs of caring for 58 dogs removed from her residence due to unsanitary conditions and distress.

The Board found that the costs for transportation, boarding, and veterinary care were actually incurred and reasonable.

However, considering the appellant's severe financial hardship, mental health challenges, and inability to pay, the Board exercised its discretion to vary the SOA.

The Board reduced the amount to $10,000, balancing the need for owner accountability with the reality of the appellant's financial distress.

The appellant appealed the removal of his dog by Animal Welfare Services, a Statement of Account for $1,133.04, and applied for the dog's return.

The dog was removed after video evidence surfaced showing the appellant physically abusing and threatening to kill the dog on a livestream.

The Animal Care Review Board found that the dog was in distress and that removal was necessary to alleviate it.

The Board confirmed the Statement of Account as reasonable and necessary costs of care.

The application for return was dismissed because the conditions causing the distress had not ceased to exist, and the Board lacked jurisdiction to order the dog returned to the appellant's family members in another province.

The appellant appealed a Statement of Account (SOA) issued by Animal Welfare Services for boarding and veterinary costs incurred after his fourteen dogs were removed for non-compliance with an order.

The original SOA amount of $41,566.85 was amended to $38,007.35 during the hearing to exclude boarding costs after the date the respondent determined the animals could be returned.

The Board found that the costs reflected actual and necessary expenses for boarding and medications, and that the amounts were reasonable.

The amended SOA was confirmed.

The appellant appealed a Statement of Account (SOA) issued by Animal Welfare Services for boarding and veterinary costs incurred after his 14 dogs were removed from his care.

The appellant argued the costs were excessive and unnecessary, specifically challenging a boarding surcharge for dogs classified as not housebroken and alleging duplication of veterinary care.

The Animal Care Review Board found the veterinary costs were reasonable and necessary, but varied the SOA to remove the boarding surcharge, reducing the total amount payable from $7,142.84 to $7,086.34.

Animal Welfare Services removed three horses from the appellant's care and issued a Decision to Keep (DTK) and a Statement of Account (SOA).

The appellant filed a notice of appeal but failed to include the required grounds or remedy for the SOA, later confirming she did not intend to appeal the costs.

Because the SOA was neither properly appealed nor paid within the statutory timeframe, the horses were automatically forfeited to the Crown under the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act.

The Chief Animal Welfare Inspector brought a motion to dismiss the appeals.

The Animal Care Review Board granted the motion, finding the SOA appeal invalid and the DTK appeal moot due to the statutory forfeiture, which eliminated the Board's jurisdiction to order the horses' return.

The appellant appealed a Statement of Account totaling $11,245.09 issued by Animal Welfare Services for boarding and veterinary costs incurred after her animals were removed due to distress.

The animals had been left alone in unsanitary conditions.

The Board found the costs were justified, reasonable, and necessary to relieve the animals' distress.

The appellant failed to provide sufficient documentary evidence to substantiate her claim of an inability to pay.

The Statement of Account was confirmed.

The appellant's dogs were removed by Animal Welfare Services while he was incarcerated.

He appealed a Statement of Account for boarding costs totaling $7,085.00, arguing financial hardship due to being under house arrest and unable to work.

The Animal Care Review Board found the boarding costs were reasonable and necessary.

However, accepting the appellant's evidence of limited financial means, the Board exercised its discretion to vary the Statement of Account, reducing the amount owed by 50 percent to $3,542.55.

The appellant appealed an order issued by Animal Welfare Services requiring her to take specific actions to relieve distress for 15 horses on her property.

The inspector had issued the order after a brief visit where she observed only two horses and did not conduct a full inspection of the property or the animals' living conditions.

The Animal Care Review Board found that the inspector lacked sufficient evidence to conclude the horses were in distress, noting the appellant's credible testimony, photographic evidence, and veterinary confirmation of the horses' well-being.

The Board revoked the order.

The appellant appealed a Statement of Account for $6,984.26 issued by Animal Welfare Services for the boarding and veterinary care of her two dogs, which were removed due to distress.

The appellant failed to attend the hearing.

The Board found that the respondent established the costs were actual, necessary to relieve the dogs' distress, and reasonable based on veterinary fee guides.

The Statement of Account was confirmed in full.

The applicant sought the return of two dogs removed by Animal Welfare Services due to their thin body condition and untreated wounds.

The dogs were kept in care after the applicant failed to comply with an order requiring a veterinary examination.

The Animal Care Review Board dismissed the application, finding that the applicant had not demonstrated the ability to meet the dogs' ongoing veterinary and shelter needs, particularly given her current housing instability and financial constraints.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Removal regarding her cat.

At the commencement of the hearing, the respondent brought a motion to dismiss the appeal as moot, arguing the cat had been forfeited to the Crown because the appellant failed to appeal or pay a Statement of Account within the statutory deadlines.

The Board granted the motion, finding that once forfeiture occurred, the appellant ceased to have ownership rights, and the Board lacked jurisdiction to order the return of the animal.

The appellant appealed a Statement of Account (SOA) issued by the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector for $10,435.34, covering the costs of care, boarding, and veterinary services for four horses removed from her property.

The Board first determined that the SOA was validly issued under s. 35(1) of the PAWS Act, finding that liability attaches to the person who was the owner or custodian at the time the costs were incurred, even if the animals were later forfeited or euthanized.

The Board confirmed the SOA in full, preferring the evidence of the respondent's veterinarians regarding the necessity and reasonableness of the care provided.

The appellant's request for costs was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a compliance order, the removal of 193 animals (including horses, cattle, sheep, emus, and birds), and a statement of account for $45,063.32 issued by Animal Welfare Services.

The Board found that the animals were in distress due to lack of proper food, water, and sanitary living conditions, and that removal was necessary to alleviate their distress.

The Board confirmed the compliance order, declined to order the return of the animals, and varied the statement of account to $43,684.44 after deducting certain transportation costs.