Ke Yi Fan

The Respondent requested a reconsideration of a decision that denied the Applicant's application for the return of her animals.

The Respondent sought to amend paragraphs in the decision regarding the status of a Statement of Account appeal, noting it had been dismissed after the hearing.

The adjudicator dismissed the reconsideration request, finding that the new information did not affect the outcome of the decision and that the reconsideration process is not intended for administrative amendments.

The applicant applied for the return of her seven bulldogs, which were removed by Animal Welfare Services after being found abandoned and living in unsanitary conditions.

The applicant, who was marginally housed and experiencing financial difficulties, argued she did not abandon the dogs and could now care for them.

The Animal Care Review Board dismissed the application, finding the applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that the conditions causing the animals' distress had ceased to exist, as she provided insufficient evidence of stable housing or improved circumstances.

The applicant sought the return of her dogs and cat, which had been removed by Animal Welfare Services.

The respondent brought a motion to dismiss the application on the basis that the animals had been forfeited to the Crown due to the applicant's failure to appeal or pay the Statement of Account within the statutory deadlines.

The Board granted the motion and dismissed the application, finding that it lacked jurisdiction to order the return of forfeited animals, as they had become the property of the Crown by operation of statute.

This costs decision follows an application under the Partition Act for the sale of two jointly owned properties.

The applicant, Tara-Lee Daniel, sought and was granted an order for the sale of the properties, with the only contested issue at the hearing being the terms of sale for a cottage property.

The court awarded Daniel full indemnity costs and awarded the intervening neighbours partial costs, finding the respondents' opposition to be without merit and their conduct to have unnecessarily increased costs.

The appellant appealed a Statement of Account (SOA) issued by Animal Welfare Services for boarding and veterinary costs incurred after her diabetic cat was removed due to lack of medical treatment.

The appellant argued she could not afford the treatment at the time but her financial situation had since improved.

The Animal Care Review Board found the costs were reasonable, necessary, and fell below standard veterinary fee guidelines.

The Board confirmed the SOA in the amount of $6,230.33, finding no basis to reduce it given the appellant's improved financial circumstances.

The court considered an application by Tara-Lee Daniel for the partition and sale of two properties co-owned with Michael Angelo Rizzo, following the end of their relationship.

The main issue was whether the sale order for the Trent Lakes property should require any purchaser to cooperate in granting a right-of-way to neighbouring properties, as set out in a prior agreement (Schedule "C").

The court found that including this term was fair and necessary to avoid uncertainty and facilitate the sale, and granted the order for sale with the requested provision.