Cal Rosemond

The appellant appealed a Decision to Keep (DTK) 14 exotic animals in care and a Statement of Account (SOA) issued by the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector.

The Animal Care Review Board found that the animals were in distress at the time of the DTK and that the appellant lacked the necessary daily care plans, veterinary relationships, and adequate enclosures to ensure the animals would not be returned to distress.

The Board denied the appeal of the DTK and confirmed the revised SOA in the amount of $11,709.69 for the costs of boarding and veterinary care.

The appellant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that denied compensation for alleged new home warranty breaches regarding an elevator, roof drainage, and doors/windows.

The appellant argued the Tribunal breached procedural fairness, exceeded its jurisdiction, and made errors of fact and law by misapprehending evidence.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding the appellant was attempting to re-litigate the original decision and re-weigh the evidence, failing to meet the high threshold for reconsideration under Rule 18.2.

The appellant appealed the removal of several exotic animals from her home and shed by Animal Welfare Services (AWS).

AWS inspectors and a veterinarian found the animals in distress due to unsanitary conditions, lack of enrichment, and improper housing.

The Animal Care Review Board upheld the removal of two Macaques, a Fennec Fox, two Genets, and a Capuchin, finding they were in distress and their basic and species-specific standards of care were not met.

However, the Board ordered the return of one juvenile Macaque kept inside the home, finding it was adequately cared for and not in distress.

The accused, a restaurant owner, was charged with mischief and obstructing police after opening his business in defiance of COVID-19 lockdown orders.

He was released on bail with conditions restricting his business operations, prohibiting him from attending his restaurant locations, and banning him from all social media.

On a bail review, the Superior Court found the complete social media ban was an error of law that violated freedom of expression.

The court removed the boundary conditions as contrary to the principle of restraint, narrowed the social media ban to prohibit only unlawful use, but upheld the business operations conditions as rationally connected to the offences.